Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Project Number:
1992-010-00
Title:
Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Summary:
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is located in southeastern Idaho, near Pocatello, and covers roughly 544,000 acres. Reservation surface-water resources are two large, mountainous watersheds drained by the Blackfoot and Portneuf rivers which eventually flow through the Snake River plain and enter its channel at river miles 750 and 726. Ferry Butte, at the confluence of the Blackfoot and Snake, is the northern boundary of an undeveloped 29,000 acre prairie draining numerous springs known as the Fort Hall Bottoms. These spring streams flow southwesterly into the lower channel of the Portneuf River, where 27,000 acres of the Bottoms have been flooded by American Falls Reservoir. The primary goal of the project is to restore fluvial salmonid habitat that has been degraded by past anthropogenic uses, primarily agriculture, irrigation, livestock grazing, and impounded and regulated river flows.

In March 1992, the Resident Fisheries Program, by cost-sharing Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Indian Affairs projects, began a comprehensive program combining instream structures, riparian fencing, and riparian planting-designed to narrow and deepen stream channels, clear spawning gravels, raise water tables, stabilize banks, aggrade silt, provide cover, and reduce summer water temperatures.
In other studies instream structures have increased pools, usable spawning gravel, and undercut banks in an Oregon stream (House and Boehne 1986) and salmonid biomass in two Arizona streams (Rinne 1981). Numerous examples with beneficial results have been shown using structures in Danish watercourses to restore meanders, banks, riffles, spawning gravels, deep pools, water quality, and fish passage (Madsen 1995). Stream bank revegetation combined with fencing to exclude livestock has had widespread success in improving riparian vegetation, bank stability, water quality, stream morphology (Madsen 1995; Clary and Webster 1989; Duff 1977) and avifaunal diversity (Dobkin 1998); and although more difficult to prove, well designed studies have shown an associated increase in trout biomass (Madsen 1995; Platts 1981; Platts and Rinne 1985). Well designed instream structures are expensive and must be considered as part of an overall plan which considers factors which initially produced poor habitat (Cederholm et al. 1997).

Overall, the project has continued to capitalize on itself in that restoration sites implemented and completed year after year have ultimately increased the availability of adult and juvenile habitats for native trout, although still limited are these habitats on the bottoms in addition to spawning substrates. In addition, restoration efforts applied have improved over the life of the project through cost-sharing programs in coordination with BPA project to purchase fencing through the Permit Fishing Program and native wetlands plugs propagated in tribal nursery and outplanted on project sites. Cost-sharing will continue throughout 2009 utilizing these programs and provide additional services.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1992
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Upper Snake Snake Upper 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Cutthroat Trout, Yellowstone
Freshwater Mussels
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Trout, Brown
OBSOLETE-Trout, Lake
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Other Resident
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Cover photo

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 1

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Location of Reservation

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 8

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Map of Spring Creek

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 9

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Map of Clear Creek

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Plantings on sloped bank at Head end

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 11

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Jack and Rail fencing on Head end

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Large cutthroat on Bottoms

Figure Name: Figure 6

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 14

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Trout fry on Spring Creek

Figure Name: Figure 7

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Head-end Sloping

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Head-end Sloping Phase

Figure Name: Figure 9

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Head-end Sloping Phase: Pre-construction at site, 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 10a

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 18

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Head-end Sloping Phase: Excavation and removal, 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 10b

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 18

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Sloped and Planted Stream Bank

Figure Name: Figure 11

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Rock Deflector at Head-end

Figure Name: Figure 12

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Steel Jack and Rail at Head-end; Fencing and seeding of Car Removal site, 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 13a

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 21

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Steel Jack and Rail at Head-end; Fencing and seeding of Car Removal site, 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 13b

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 21

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Technicians plant wetlands plugs on Car Removal site, 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 25

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 33

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307

Greenhouse Nurseries

Figure Name: Figure 26

Document ID: P126325

Document: 2010/11 Annual Progress Report

Page Number: 34

Project: 1992-010-00

Contract: 48307


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $341,537 $763,914 $724,015 $724,015 $222,558

Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock $763,914 $724,015 $724,015 $222,558
FY2017 (Current) $335,239 $335,239 $335,239 $335,239 $288,410

Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock $335,239 $335,239 $335,239 $288,410
FY2018 (Next) $152,987 $152,987 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock $152,987 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Jun-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $283,718 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord – Shoshone Bannock 11/07/2008
FY2016 Expense $53,534 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $10,297 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT budget adjustments (contract closeouts) 03/26/2012
FY2016 Expense $20,235 To: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT - establish FY13-17 budget for 2011-021-00 Accord Administration 08/24/2012
FY2016 Expense $14,223 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT Budget cleanup (7/23/2015) 07/24/2015
FY2016 Expense $232,000 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, Id, CRITFC) 9/7/2016 09/08/2016
FY2016 Expense $190,377 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, Id, CRITFC) 9/7/2016 09/08/2016
FY2017 Expense $283,718 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord – Shoshone Bannock 11/07/2008
FY2017 Expense $61,965 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $10,297 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT budget adjustments (contract closeouts) 03/26/2012
FY2017 Expense $20,741 To: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT - establish FY13-17 budget for 2011-021-00 Accord Administration 08/24/2012
FY2018 Expense $283,718 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord – Shoshone Bannock 11/07/2008
FY2018 Expense $70,607 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2018 Expense $10,298 From: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT budget adjustments (contract closeouts) 03/26/2012
FY2018 Expense $21,259 To: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock SBT - establish FY13-17 budget for 2011-021-00 Accord Administration 08/24/2012
FY2018 Expense $190,377 To: Fish Accord - Shoshone Bannock Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, Id, CRITFC) 9/7/2016 09/08/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 35 %
FY2012 24 %
FY2011 41 %
FY2010 32 %
FY2009 51 %
FY2008 29 %
FY2007 36 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
74365 SOW Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 1992-010-00 EXP FORT HALL HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $724,015 9/1/2016 - 8/31/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):17
Completed:11
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:47
On time:8
Avg Days Late:33

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6040 23243, 27720, 32672, 37902, 42827, 48307, 54449, 58904, 62346, 66366, 70182, 74365 1992-010-00 FORT HALL STREAM RESTORATION Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 09/2001 09/2001 Pending 47 85 13 2 50 150 65.33% 1
Project Totals 47 85 13 2 50 150 65.33% 1


Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1992-010-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The sponsors provided additional, useful information that was not included in the proposal including maps of the project sites and streams; additional data; and a more complete list of objectives and strategies for accomplishing the objectives. The response at least partially addresses the ISRP’s questions but unfortunately it raises additional questions and concerns. It is not evident from the proposal and response that the project has a clear direction, a comprehensive restoration plan in place, and a systematically planned and consistent monitoring program for fish and habitat. In future proposals and reports, the sponsors should strive for better organization and more coherent writing, especially in explaining results. Two major issues were not adequately addressed in the proposal and response: 1) a comprehensive presentation of data and analysis, and 2) a clear description of the fish and habitat monitoring plan.

Data presentation and analysis

The sponsors state that habitat conditions in Fort Hall Reservation streams have improved, but this assertion is not as well supported with data as it could be. The sponsors provide a map identifying numerous sites that are apparently continually monitored yet they present data from only a few select sites and sometimes for only a few years. The response could have been improved if the sponsors presented an analysis of trends from habitat and fish monitoring for all sites and streams, and for all years that the sites and streams were sampled. The only habitat data that was presented in the response were trends in silt depth for two streams and channel width for one stream. The sponsors should have identified all the habitat variables, for example canopy cover, stream temperature, and channel morphology, that were measured and the metrics used, and included these in their analysis.

Discussion of fish sampling design and methodology could have been expanded. It would have been helpful to have known the locations, number, and lengths of sites sampled for fish and the rationale for selection of these sites. The sponsors would do well to report fish data not just as total trout captured but also according to species (Yellowstone cutthroat, rainbow trout, hybrids) and size class.

The sponsors identify some montane and some low elevation reference streams that will be compared to streams with ongoing projects to assess how well the treatment streams are responding to habitat improvement actions. Montane streams and the spring streams on the Fort Hall Reservation should be treated as separate kinds of systems as they differ geomorphologically, hydrologically, and biologically. Thus, it may be problematic to use a montane stream as a reference for a spring stream. It would have been helpful if the sponsors had used data to compare reference streams to treatment streams in terms of flow regime, geomorphology, channel morphology, riparian conditions, and level of impairment. They should justify why these streams are good references based not only on fish abundance but also on habitat conditions.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The sponsors state, “Status and assessment of the habitat and fishery will begin in 2012 which will provide further guidance for future projects for the Bottoms.Assessment and Inventory will quantify fishery status and habitat with the intent to facilitate and determine project effects on the population level.”This statement is perplexing. Based on the proposal and the response, the ISRP Impression was that an M&E plan is in place and that quantification of the status of fish populations and habitat is underway. If there is an M&E program in place, it should have been discussed more fully. Many of the comments made under “Data and analysis” above apply here. What is the design of the M&E plan? What are the design and protocols for sampling habitat and fish? What are the habitat and fish variables that are being measured, and the methods and metrics?

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The proposal continues instream and riparian habitat restoration in Fort Hall Reservation streams, largely lower gradient spring streams that are highly productive but provide challenges in their rehabilitation. The sponsors have undertaken a number of habitat restoration projects, some of which appear to have been successful at least locally. They have also encountered difficult problems. For example, on Clear Creek, a major Fort Hall Reservation stream where restoration actions were implemented, habitat restoration was suspended due to the negative impact of the Tribal bison herd on riparian habitat. This problem remains unresolved, although there are future plans to fence the stream to exclude bison. 

Unfortunately the project appears to lack clear future direction. A scientifically sound habitat restoration plan and monitoring and evaluation program are badly needed. Data analysis needs to be more comprehensive. The ISRP strongly recommends that the sponsors enlist the assistance of a fluvial geomorphologist, especially one experienced with spring streams, in developing a robust restoration plan and a biostatistician to assist with design of the M&E plan and analysis of data.

The sponsors have completed a Draft Resident Fisheries Management Plan for the Reservation that awaits approval by the Fort Hall Business Council and scoping by the Tribal Membership. Hopefully, this Plan will address the above concerns.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - provide a comprehensive habitat restoration plan
The sponsors should provide a comprehensive habitat restoration plan including a scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation strategy to the ISRP for review within 18 months. The plan should cover both montane and spring streams on the Fort Hall Reservation. The ISRP strongly recommends that the sponsors enlist the assistance of a fluvial geomorphologist in developing the restoration plan and a biostatistician to assist with the design of the M&E plan and analysis of data. Plans developed by the Crystal Springs and Yankee Fork projects may be useful examples. The ISRP also would like to review the Draft Resident Fisheries Management Plan.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

The sponsors appear to have done quite a bit of habitat enhancement work, and it seems that it has improved habitat conditions in Fort Hall Bottoms streams. The project appears to be at an important juncture as it is poised for larger-scale efforts, but without strong underpinnings of consistent and predictable successful results. The proposed assessment of limiting factors comes at a good time and might be expanded. This project, however, needs to complete a comprehensive summary of the past work, current resource status, and establish focused priorities for achieving improvements to aquatic resources and fisheries. Toward this end, the sponsors need to provide an overall plan for restoration including:

  1. Discussion, but preferably numerical documentation, that the habitat protection and restoration goals are obtainable and that achieving the habitat goals would lead to the desired improvement in fish abundance.

  2. A comprehensive summary of the status of the resources including habitat and focal species, assessments of limiting factors, work completed prior to 2007, work completed post-2007, and what the priorities are for 2012 – 2017. The summary should include an up to date report of results through 2010 or 2011, if the data have been analyzed.

  3. Clearly stated recovery objectives. If quantifiable objectives and strategies have been established, they should be stated. Streams where the enhancement work will take place need to be identified. A map of current and proposed future projects would be helpful.

  4. A rationale for selection and prioritization of potential sites for habitat restoration, the sites where proposed work will take place, and why these sites were selected.

  5. A more thorough description of the M&E program including sampling design, methods, and metrics.

  6. More information on Bannock Creek.

  7. A justification for stocking hatchery fish (Deliverable 11) including how this activity is consistent with the overall goal of recovering native fish populations. Is this activity intended for harvest augmentation or supplementation?

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

The proposal continues instream and riparian habitat restoration in Fort Hall Bottoms streams, largely lower gradient spring streams that are highly productive but provide challenges in their rehabilitation. It states, "The goal of this project is to provide conditions to recover weak populations of focal species (native Yellowstone cutthroat) to self-sustaining levels on the Fort Hall Reservation by improving/providing suitable habitat."

A new aspect of the proposed actions is to address some of the larger, more complex and expensive areas of habitat damage. More elaborate design and engineering would be included, appropriately. The larger scale work would also be accompanied by an assessment of the spring creeks to better evaluate limiting factors and presumably aid in prioritizing efforts. This overall approach appears to reviewers to be necessary and appropriate as the project evolves.

Such an assessment should include a determination of the portions of the creeks that are most important to (a) protect and (b) restore for cutthroat trout with resident and adfluvial types addressed separately and with a parallel evaluation for non-native trout species. An assessment that does these things and begins to quantify fish habitat and fish abundance is vitally needed at this point to assemble a plan for restoration that so far has been lacking.

This is largely a stand-alone effort because it is probably the only spring stream restoration project in the Columbia Basin and involves somewhat different geomorphological principles than "freestone" streams. The photos included in the proposal do a very good job in helping describe the situation.

The proposal could be improved with a stronger technical justification and problem statement. The problem statement is taken from the narrative developed in 2007 and should be updated. The proposal would be improved if the sponsors had discussed in more detail the current status of habitat and focal species, how this current status reflects the work done during earlier funding or work cycles, the major limiting factors and how widespread and significant these factors are in limiting trout populations, and how the current status informs the priorities for the next few years. A discussion of work completed prior to 2007, work completed post-2007, and what the priorities are for 2012 – 2017 would have been helpful.

The proposal could be enhanced if a more definitive recovery goal for fish populations was stated. At one point in the proposal the sponsors state that the goal is to “recover weak populations of focal species… to self-sustaining levels.” It is unclear what the sponsors mean by “weak” and how they determined that populations were “weak.” It is equally unclear how they will determine when the populations reach “self-sustaining levels.” At another point in the proposal the sponsors state that the goal of the work is to restore trout populations to “historical levels.” It is unclear what “historical levels” means numerically and whether it is conceivable today to restore populations to the abundances they maintained in the past. 

There are four objectives in the proposal: improve habitat; increase focal species density; monitoring and evaluate work; and increase angler and tribal member catch. No time frame for achieving these objectives was given. The background and problem statement did not establish that meeting the habitat protection and restoration goals was obtainable and that achieving the habitat goals would lead to the desired improvement in fish abundance. Additionally, there is no quantitative documentation that improving cutthroat abundance would provide sufficient fish for achieving the harvest objectives. Some treatment of the links between these goals is needed.

The sponsors state, “Quantifiable or measurable objectives were never developed for project 199201000 or submitted to BPA in Statement of Work documents or previous proposals. An attempt was made during the Subbasin Planning Process by Resident Fisheries Program in 2004. Because this is an on-going project proposal, it was decided to not include the newly drafted objectives and strategies in the appropriate section(s).” A statement of quantitative, measurable objectives would have improved the proposal considerably.

Objective 2 is to increase focal species densities. This is an important goal, but apart from the cessation of stocking non-native species (already accomplished) how would it be done? No mention is made of how much the sponsors want to increase densities and in what streams. 

The sponsors point out that their work is consistent with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the Upper Snake Subbasin Plan. Is there a relationship to a tribal fisheries plan or environmental document? The program may also have relationships with Idaho or Nevada trout stocking plans and/or policies.

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

The sponsors appear to have done quite a bit of habitat enhancement work and it seems that it has improved habitat conditions. Discussion of accomplishment and results were presented too briefly and may not fully reflect the progress of the project to date. The discussion could have been better organized with transparent links between the tasks completed since 1993 and the current status and assessment of the habitat and fishery resources. Most of the Accomplishments section was taken from the 2007 proposal. 

It was not clear how trout abundance data were obtained, although the use of electrofishing was mentioned. It appears cutthroat trout are now beginning to expand to occupy habitat that was previously occupied by hatchery-produced rainbow trout prior to discontinuation of stocking. Unfortunately there are few, if any, comparable situations elsewhere with which to compare as most western U.S. spring streams are populated with non-native trout. Emphasis to date has been on "soft" techniques for restoration, using a minimum of heavy equipment unless there is no alternative. This approach appears sound.

A major concern is how effective the project has been in increasing abundance of native fishes in both Clear Creek and Spring Creek. Trout densities in Clear Creek increased through the 1990’s but then declined precipitously in the 2000’s. The sponsors believe that the decline was due to the impact of the Tribal bison herd on stream habitat. Future plans are to fence the stream to exclude bison. Only results though the mid-2000’s are presented for Clear Creek. The sponsors should have presented up to date results if they are available.

The trend in trout abundance in Spring Creek is also of concern. Trout densities in Spring Creek decreased considerably from 1993 to 2008 despite habitat improvement efforts. Trout biomass was variable since 1993, but it increased in 2008. Since data after 2008 was not reported it is unclear whether the increasing trend in biomass will continue. Again, up to date results should have been presented. Apparently the sponsors will continue habitat improvement work in Spring Creek, but this effort may be futile unless they clearly understand why trout densities have remained depressed since the early 1990’s despite extensive, ongoing habitat enhancement work. Perhaps the positive results from enhancement are so localized that they had little stream-wide impact. If so, what can be done? Is it possible that overharvest is a problem and stricter harvest regulations are needed?

The sponsors discuss management changes that are not really adaptive in the sense that the project has been improved or a new phase of the project has been initiated based on results of past work.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The ISRP will complete this after reviewing the sponsors’ response.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

Monitoring results for physical habitat and biological (fish and invertebrates) changes will be completed in 2012 for the most recent bank stabilization project. Some results of the project’s nearly 20-year history are summarized but need to be brought up to date. Before and after photos of the most recent effort are helpful and illustrate visually habitat improvement. Accounts of physical habitat and fish abundance changes over time were fragmented and difficult to interpret, leaving reviewers with the feeling that much is needed to define the best metrics to monitor and to determine the methods needed to gather them. More needs to be known about the factors limiting cutthroat trout in project streams, as the proposal acknowledges and proposes to focus upon.

For emerging limiting factors, the proposal states that non-native fish are collected annually and fish have been sampled for contaminants. Results of this work were not presented in the proposal. There was little discussion of how abundant and widespread non-native fish are in the streams. No mention is made of climate change impacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables include the use of a variety of techniques such as riparian fencing, to achieve restoration. The proposed work on newly acquired property on Bannock Creek is not described in any detail and may need some ISRP review as planning is completed.

Deliverable 1, “Increase Instream Habitat Complexity and Stability” is rather general. The streams, rationale for selection of sites within the streams, and the kinds of enhancement actions that will be implemented are unspecified. 

For Deliverable 4, a more thorough discussion of non-native fish problems would have been insightful.

Deliverable6 pertains to collection and analysis of habitat data. The sponsors propose to use the CHaMP protocol for collection of data. This protocol generates a large amount of habitat data. The sponsors do not provide much detail on how this data will be analyzed, what kinds of fish data will be collected, where it will be collected, and how it will be collected? 

Deliverable 7 pertains to assessment of habitat conditions in the major streams in the Fort Hall Bottoms. On what streams will this assessment take place, how will the assessment be designed, and what data will be collected.

Deliverables 8 and 9 pertain to habitat work in Bannock Creek. This is the first time in the proposal that Bannock Creek was mentioned. There has been insufficient discussion of habitat problems in the stream, the status of the fish population, sites selected for restoration and how they were selected. 

Deliverable 11 is to “Stock native focal species on Reservation.” More information on the stocking program is needed. How many fish will be stocked and how often? What is the size of the fish that will be stocked? Is the purpose of stocking hatchery trout harvest augmentation or supplementation? Possible genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery-reared trout on naturally spawning fish should be considered.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:25:15 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (3/7/2012)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-NPCC-20120321
Project: 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-1992-010-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 3/5/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2014. By March 2014, sponsors to develop and submit for a ISRP review a comprehensive habitat restoration plan to address ISRP qualifications. Council funding recommendation beyond 2014 based on favorable ISRP and Council review of the plan.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-010-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Restoration activities (fencing, planting etc) for resident fish habitat/substitution program; appears to be mitigating primarily for non-FCRPS project (American Falls) and sponsor-generated grazing impacts; other entities authorized/required to address (other hydro, tribe, BIA etc).

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-010-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal is improved from past proposals in terms of readability. Project results in the form of habitat and fish population changes are much more clearly described for Clear and Spring creeks. In future, results from other streams for which activities are being initiated should be described in a similar manner.

Tasks outlined in the proposal appear fundable, for Spring Creek and other project locations, except for those portions regarding Clear Creek. The response is of value in providing additional detail on the Clear Creek bison issue and suggests to reviewers that progress is being made toward a solution. Quoting from the response: "The Resident Fisheries Department is currently working with the Tribal Land Use Department (Range Department) and NRCS in surveying rangelands for development of a Range Management Plan (currently being drafted) and Tribal Enterprises which includes the Tribal Buffalo Herd Program to assess what the pasture can sustain and reduce the size of the herd accordingly, and a rotational scheme between other pastures. In addition, The Resident Fisheries Program is working with Tribal Water Quality staff develop water quality standards for the Fort Hall Reservation. As mentioned previously, additional funding has been made available through BPA for fence purchasing. Plans for restoring the buffalo fence are underway for a short-term solution until management plans can be implemented in for the tribal buffalo herd. No time line is currently available as of this response but approval to initiate the process by Fort Hall Business Council will take place in August 2006."

Therefore, Clear Creek fisheries activities are not fundable until adequate resolution is reached, as described above, to preclude future sediment delivery into the stream from the buffalo pasture source.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-010-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-010-00 - Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Hunter Osborne Project Lead Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Jennifer Lord Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Israel Duran Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Dorothy Welch Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Karen Wolfe Technical Contact Bonneville Power Administration