Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
1996-077-02
Title:
Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration
Summary:
The Lolo Creek Watershed Restoration project (1996-077-02) has been an on-going project of the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program and BPA since 1996. The ultimate goal of the project is to restore the physical and biological characteristics of the watershed to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish species that support the historical, cultural and economic practices of the Nez Perce Tribe. The Lolo Creek watershed contains proposed critical habitat for listed species steelhead trout and potential critical habitat for bull trout; it has moderate habitat potential for spring Chinook salmon. Restoration in this watershed focuses on restoring riparian processes by addressing increased water temperatures, increased sedimentation, cattle grazing affects, fish passage barriers, and noxious weed infestations. The project addresses passage problems, primarily at road/stream crossings, on both private and federal land and addresses riparian planting and riparian protection program management. Completed project work includes culvert prioritization and assessment, installation of an off-site water source, 28 culvert replacements, 11 culvert removals, 1600 ft. of stream bank stabilization, 101 miles of road decommissioning, 16 miles of fence installation, over 22,000 riparian trees planted, and continued monitoring and evaluation.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1996
Ending FY:
2022
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 70.0%   Resident: 30.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 9 Figure 1: Jim Brown Creek culvert after replacement.

Project: 1996-077-02

Document: P125489

Dimensions: 382 x 274

Description: New outlet

Contract: 31552

Dimensions: 2304 x 1728

Description: Crews installing bioengineered willows.

Contract: 31552

Dimensions: 2304 x 1728


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $654,244 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2021 Expense $654,244 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY 06/09/2020
FY2022 Expense $654,244 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY22 SOY 1st Batch 05/06/2021

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 $271,015 29%
2019 $143,905 18%
2018 $140,486 18%
2017 $258,776 28%
2016 $158,144 25%
2015 $388,269 46%
2014 $144,177 24%
2013 $219,612 30%
2012 $227,019 36%
2011 $231,544 35%
2010 $213,564 37%
2009 $299,780 39%
2008 $172,130 40%
2007 $307,938 54%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
4561 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-77-2 PROTECT AND RESTORE LOLO CREEK WATERSHED History $783,334 3/1/2001 - 2/28/2005
21712 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 077 02 PROTECT AND RESTORE LOLO CREEK WATERSHED History $251,727 3/1/2005 - 2/28/2006
26390 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 077 02 LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION History $240,766 3/1/2006 - 2/28/2007
31552 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996 077 02 LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $170,018 3/1/2007 - 2/29/2008
32944 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1996 077 02 EXP USFS LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $69,958 3/1/2007 - 2/29/2008
36513 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199607702 EXP NPT LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $189,582 3/1/2008 - 2/28/2009
36691 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1996-077-02 EXP USFS LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $70,000 3/1/2008 - 2/28/2009
41152 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199607702 EXP NPT LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $201,485 3/1/2009 - 2/28/2010
41713 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199607702 EXP USFS LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $198,671 3/1/2009 - 2/28/2010
46105 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 199607702 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $779,722 3/1/2010 - 2/29/2012
56024 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $874,197 3/1/2012 - 2/28/2014
64101 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $399,936 3/1/2014 - 2/28/2015
68070 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION 2015 Closed $440,440 3/1/2015 - 2/29/2016
71402 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION 2016 Closed $389,234 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2017
75444 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO/SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $661,244 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
74017 REL 18 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $651,376 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019
74017 REL 41 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $615,965 2/1/2019 - 1/31/2020
84370 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Closed $623,217 2/1/2020 - 1/31/2021
87084 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1996-077-02 EXP LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Issued $654,244 2/1/2021 - 1/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):20
Completed:18
On time:18
Status Reports
Completed:78
On time:45
Avg Days Late:0

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
4561 21712, 26390, 31552, 36513, 41152, 46105, 56024, 64101, 68070, 71402, 75444, 74017 REL 18, 74017 REL 41, 84370, 87084 1996-77-2 PROTECT AND RESTORE LOLO CREEK WATERSHED Nez Perce Tribe 03/2001 03/2001 Issued 66 190 16 0 5 211 97.63% 10
32944 36691, 41713 1996 077 02 EXP USFS LOLO CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2007 03/2007 Closed 12 14 0 0 0 14 100.00% 0
Project Totals 101 234 16 0 5 255 98.04% 12


Historical from: 2007-092-00
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
53830 60374, 64568, 68391, 71444 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED Nez Perce Tribe 08/2011 08/2011 History 23 30 0 0 0 30 100.00% 2
Project Totals 101 234 16 0 5 255 98.04% 12


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1996-077-02
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #2 and #3 in future reviews. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #1).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #1).
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #2 and #3 in future reviews.
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #2 and #3 in future reviews.
Council Condition #4 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #1).
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-092-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2018. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in contracting and for future reviews. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in contracting and for future reviews.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in contracting and for future reviews.
Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1996-077-02
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

 

The proposal describes a well-organized and long term watershed scale restoration program that integrates upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments. It is a very successful partnership between Nez Perce tribe (NPT), the U.S. Forest Service, Potlatch Corp, and others. Work accomplished over the past 15 years, by the project, makes it a regionally important program. Additional detail and supporting information would provide the reader with better insights into the setting for the project. A location map and information on factors such as geology, ownership, legacies of historical land use would be useful.

 

A solid conceptual and technical background is provided, and there is a generally clear explanation and use of a variety of plans and assessments to drive selection of restoration work. It remains a little unclear on how projects were identified and prioritized in the first 10-15 years. Also, the proposal states that additional assessments for fish passage and road condition are needed. This seems a bit odd given that the project has been underway for over 15 years. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful.

The proposal also notes that an MOA is being developed that will commit the U.S. Forest Service to provide at least 20% of the project cost presumably to qualify to receive BPA funding. This does not appear to be a requirement for any other state or federal agencies involved in the program and would be useful to find out the rationale given that a large share of the accessible habitat in this area is on NFS lands.

Five of the eight objectives provide a quantitative description of desired results however, there is no time element provided describing when the results are anticipated. Also, it is noted that a minimum level of increase in habitat productivity of 12-14% is needed in this watershed. There is no estimate or discussion of how the proposed work contributes toward reaching that increase or how much additional treatment is needed after the current round of funding (2014-18).

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

This project has a long list of project accomplishments that appear well linked to analysis of watershed, key processes, and habitat conditions. It has a long history and demonstrates a large amount of varied implementation and effectiveness monitoring that has been conducted. There are a number of results discussed that are based on the monitoring including: stream temperature reductions, reductions in substrate embeddedness and sediment source areas (roads), and an increase in habitat accessible to adult and juvenile salmonids.

There is a good discussion of how evaluation of results has led to changes/improvements in a variety of treatments including fish passage, road decommissioning and improvement, and riparian planting. An adaptive management approach of “assess, design, implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust, and repeat” is being used. To help evaluate biological responses to restoration work the project will use data collected by the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, IDFG, and BLM who are performing on the ground monitoring in the basin. Photos of completed actions were helpful, but dates taken should be indicated. It is not possible, however, to tell if the project is meeting expectations.

There is acknowledgement of previous ISRP comments regarding development of a more robust adaptive management approach, and it is stated that the NPT is in the process of developing a more formal plan that will be completed by December 2014. Some questions regarding project monitoring include:

1) The current discussion of fish data is not clearly described, but it is good to see data included. A better description is needed of the intent and protocols for snorkeling surveys that are conducted on an annual basis to assess population abundance, species composition, and age distribution. All values are based on presence/absence observations and are not necessarily reflective of true population estimates.

2) There are no clear indications of success from efforts to reduce sedimentation, although there is perhaps a minor positive change to water temperature. It is suggested that a treatment versus reference site comparison is needed.

Evaluation of Results

This project appears to be well thought out and coordinated, technically sound, and able to identify a number of possible, ecological results tied to major limiting factors. The project partnership has made good use of multiple funding sources and technical skills and resources from the primary partners. It remains a little less clear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this.

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

Climate change and invasive species were identified as emerging limiting factors. There is an excellent discussion regarding climate change, its likely effects to this watershed, and actions that have and will be taken in response. This discussion could serve as a model for other proposals as they examine implications of climate change. The sponsors are planning for possible effects by designing culvert and fish passage project for 100 year flood events and feel floodplain reconnections, riparian plantings, and other actions will help dampen the effects of warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Additional information and discussion on climate change effects to upland vegetation and future forest health and fire risk would have been useful. Also, some discussion of future development on private and industrial forest land and potential effects on this effort would have added to the discussion. Brook trout are identified as an invasive species that could negatively interact with native salmonids. No strategies are suggested for how this species should be managed in the future to reduce its potential impacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a list of 10 deliverables that include reasonable stated methods and metrics. Actions are listed that will be used to accomplish each deliverable and specific planned projects are mentioned. A couple of exceptions include riparian planting where only the number of plants to be planted is provided rather than riparian/floodplain area or length and a section on assessments which includes fish passage and road condition, each with no description of numbers or geographic area to be assessed. Given the large amount of work that has already occurred, it would have be useful to include a better discussion of why future assessments were needed, where they are to occur, when they will be completed, and how they will be integrated in to the ongoing list of project work.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This includes a very good discussion about past monitoring and the use of results to inform the direction of the program. Five RM&E protocols are listed. Four of them plus their associated methods were developed by Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board. There is also a very complete discussion which addresses integration of ISEMP, CHAMP, and AEM in the future. It is unclear how PIBO monitoring, which has been ongoing for a number of years, will be coordinated or integrated into future CHAMP monitoring and whether the several years of data will be used. It appears that not doing this would be a waste of a significant long term data set and a missed coordination opportunity.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Status and details regarding the "to be completed" NPT Monitoring plan. These comments are contained in the discussion of programmatic comments
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
It is unclear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this. There are fish passage and road condition assessments that have to be completed and prioritized into the broader program of work. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful. A more complete documentation of plans for this work would be useful and perhaps a review of completed documents accomplished in the future (1-2 years).
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
The sponsors need to provide a more serious discussion of past restoration project results and provide more details regarding anticipated benefits to fish and wildlife resources in a plan for future work.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

 

The proposal describes a well-organized and long term watershed scale restoration program that integrates upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments. It is a very successful partnership between Nez Perce tribe (NPT), the U.S. Forest Service, Potlatch Corp, and others. Work accomplished over the past 15 years, by the project, makes it a regionally important program. Additional detail and supporting information would provide the reader with better insights into the setting for the project. A location map and information on factors such as geology, ownership, legacies of historical land use would be useful.

 

A solid conceptual and technical background is provided, and there is a generally clear explanation and use of a variety of plans and assessments to drive selection of restoration work. It remains a little unclear on how projects were identified and prioritized in the first 10-15 years. Also, the proposal states that additional assessments for fish passage and road condition are needed. This seems a bit odd given that the project has been underway for over 15 years. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful.

The proposal also notes that an MOA is being developed that will commit the U.S. Forest Service to provide at least 20% of the project cost presumably to qualify to receive BPA funding. This does not appear to be a requirement for any other state or federal agencies involved in the program and would be useful to find out the rationale given that a large share of the accessible habitat in this area is on NFS lands.

Five of the eight objectives provide a quantitative description of desired results however, there is no time element provided describing when the results are anticipated. Also, it is noted that a minimum level of increase in habitat productivity of 12-14% is needed in this watershed. There is no estimate or discussion of how the proposed work contributes toward reaching that increase or how much additional treatment is needed after the current round of funding (2014-18).

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

This project has a long list of project accomplishments that appear well linked to analysis of watershed, key processes, and habitat conditions. It has a long history and demonstrates a large amount of varied implementation and effectiveness monitoring that has been conducted. There are a number of results discussed that are based on the monitoring including: stream temperature reductions, reductions in substrate embeddedness and sediment source areas (roads), and an increase in habitat accessible to adult and juvenile salmonids.

There is a good discussion of how evaluation of results has led to changes/improvements in a variety of treatments including fish passage, road decommissioning and improvement, and riparian planting. An adaptive management approach of “assess, design, implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust, and repeat” is being used. To help evaluate biological responses to restoration work the project will use data collected by the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, IDFG, and BLM who are performing on the ground monitoring in the basin. Photos of completed actions were helpful, but dates taken should be indicated. It is not possible, however, to tell if the project is meeting expectations.

There is acknowledgement of previous ISRP comments regarding development of a more robust adaptive management approach, and it is stated that the NPT is in the process of developing a more formal plan that will be completed by December 2014. Some questions regarding project monitoring include:

1) The current discussion of fish data is not clearly described, but it is good to see data included. A better description is needed of the intent and protocols for snorkeling surveys that are conducted on an annual basis to assess population abundance, species composition, and age distribution. All values are based on presence/absence observations and are not necessarily reflective of true population estimates.

2) There are no clear indications of success from efforts to reduce sedimentation, although there is perhaps a minor positive change to water temperature. It is suggested that a treatment versus reference site comparison is needed.

Evaluation of Results

This project appears to be well thought out and coordinated, technically sound, and able to identify a number of possible, ecological results tied to major limiting factors. The project partnership has made good use of multiple funding sources and technical skills and resources from the primary partners. It remains a little less clear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this.

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

Climate change and invasive species were identified as emerging limiting factors. There is an excellent discussion regarding climate change, its likely effects to this watershed, and actions that have and will be taken in response. This discussion could serve as a model for other proposals as they examine implications of climate change. The sponsors are planning for possible effects by designing culvert and fish passage project for 100 year flood events and feel floodplain reconnections, riparian plantings, and other actions will help dampen the effects of warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Additional information and discussion on climate change effects to upland vegetation and future forest health and fire risk would have been useful. Also, some discussion of future development on private and industrial forest land and potential effects on this effort would have added to the discussion. Brook trout are identified as an invasive species that could negatively interact with native salmonids. No strategies are suggested for how this species should be managed in the future to reduce its potential impacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a list of 10 deliverables that include reasonable stated methods and metrics. Actions are listed that will be used to accomplish each deliverable and specific planned projects are mentioned. A couple of exceptions include riparian planting where only the number of plants to be planted is provided rather than riparian/floodplain area or length and a section on assessments which includes fish passage and road condition, each with no description of numbers or geographic area to be assessed. Given the large amount of work that has already occurred, it would have be useful to include a better discussion of why future assessments were needed, where they are to occur, when they will be completed, and how they will be integrated in to the ongoing list of project work.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This includes a very good discussion about past monitoring and the use of results to inform the direction of the program. Five RM&E protocols are listed. Four of them plus their associated methods were developed by Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board. There is also a very complete discussion which addresses integration of ISEMP, CHAMP, and AEM in the future. It is unclear how PIBO monitoring, which has been ongoing for a number of years, will be coordinated or integrated into future CHAMP monitoring and whether the several years of data will be used. It appears that not doing this would be a waste of a significant long term data set and a missed coordination opportunity.

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:49:42 AM.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-092-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The Selway River is an attractive site for habitat restoration because private landownership is mainly in the lower 10% of the basin and the remaining 90% of the river is situated in the federally designated Selway Wilderness Area. Federal ownership should help ease the implementation of restoration actions. Also, the B-run steelhead of the Selway represents an important metapopulation in the Clearwater Basin as this population has never been supplemented with hatchery fish. The FCRPS Expert Panel Process for the Selway identified four limiting factors for the basin, and by far the most important was sedimentation which was given a weighting factor of 78%, followed by water temperature (10%), passage barriers (8%) and riparian vegetation (5%). The Nez Perce Tribe and Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest (U.S. Forest Service) have prioritized restoration actions in the Selway based on the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment, the Expert Panel Process and current watershed surveys. The overall goal of this proposal is to restore the Selway River watershed so the physical habitat of the basin no longer limits the recovery of ESA-listed steelhead. The project is important regionally because of its potential to restore the Selway River steelhead population to viable status.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status, and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments; however, it seems redundant to include this information under both Project Significance and Problem Statement. Note on page 4, ESU refers to “evolutionarily” not “ecologically” significant units.

The project has five objectives to: 1) increase anadromous fish abundance and productivity, 2) reduce sedimentation, 3) reduce fish passage barriers, 4) reduce the impact of roads and, 5) protect and restore riparian habitats. Objectives 2, 3, and 4 have success criteria that can be measured. No productivity or abundance goals were produced for Objective 1. Similarly, no success criteria were established for Objective 5 which deals with restoring riparian habitat.

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

Even though this project began recently, in August of 2011, a number of actions have been completed. Two culverts were replaced and opened approximately 9.5 miles of habitat. A road inventory using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package was started. This process was used on the O’Hara Creek Road and road segments contributing significant amounts of sediment were identified. Additionally four culvert surveys were completed in the Selway subbasin to identify which were likely to fail or block fish passage.

This proposal demonstrates that advice from the ISRP's review in 2006 has been taken seriously as the monitoring and adaptive management components of the proposal are much improved. However, the description of adaptive management refers to a “passive” approach. The ISAB (see ISAB 2011-4) and ISRP promote active adaptive management, consistent with the original definition of the term, in which experimentation is deliberate in order to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions. This approach places a value on knowledge to reduce uncertainty in the future as an outcome in itself, and requires formulation of alternative hypotheses and an experimental design to test those hypotheses.

The description of proposed monitoring under the Problem Statement and Monitoring (as DELV-5) is generally good. The main deficiency is that the proposal does not include provisions, or at least a description of such provisions, for measuring success in achieving Objective 1, increase anadromous fish productivity and production.

The proposal states that all the habitat actions will be monitored to determine if they meet expected goals. Results from this monitoring will be used to change or refine how restoration actions occur in the future. This approach was used to change how culverts are being replaced. The project is now using bottomless arch culverts or bridges as opposed to typical squash type culverts because the bottomless culverts are better able to pass flood waters and retain substrate. The Expert Panel Process also caused the project to key on populations in the Selway and on the factors that are limiting their abundance.

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

This is a collaborative project with personnel from the U.S. Forest Service’s Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest. The project complements a number of ongoing projects, including the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed programs, and the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Forest Restoration Act. The sponsors are also working with P. Roni and colleagues at NOAA Fisheries to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that will be used in the Selway and in other areas where the Tribe is conducting habitat restoration work.

Two emerging limiting factors are identified, climate change and invasive species. The possible effects of climate change are clearly stated. The sponsors are designing their restoration actions to account for impacts caused by climate. For example, culvert and bridge replacements are designed to accommodate 100-year flood events. Additionally it is hypothesized that riparian planting, improving stream complexity, reconnection of the floodplain, and improving fish passage will help dampen climate change effects.

Possible impacts caused by invasive plant and animal species were also identified as emerging limiting factors. In this case, a number of nonindigenous species of fish residing in the Selway River were identified. But no mention is made of how they might interact with native fish species and how such interactions might be addressed in the future. The possible consequences of invasive plants or weeds are described and some examples of the species of concern are given. Yet, no mention is made on how the effects of weeds might be dealt with in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 

Five of the six project deliverables, road decommissioning, fish passage, road improvements, inventory assessments, and project management are fairly well defined. For example, in the passage and road decommissioning and improvement deliverables specific future restoration actions are described. Inventories on culverts, bridges, and fords have taken place in the Selway subbasin. The deliverable for conducting inventories also presents future work, indicating that additional inventories on riparian and instream habitat condition, fish passage, and existing road network will occur. That being said some simple editing would improve the proposal as the aims of three of the deliverables change depending upon what portion of the proposal is examined. For instance in the proposal summary the deliverable for road decommission is 48 miles while in the Deliverable Section it equals 24 miles. Similar inconsistencies in the proposal summary and deliverables sections exist in the aims of the fish passage and road improvement deliverables. These conflicts need to be corrected. The deliverable that describes the monitoring efforts that are planned states that implementation and compliance as well as action effectiveness monitoring will take place. No mention, however, of status and trends monitoring is made. This type of monitoring should take place, and the sponsors need to indicate the methods that will be used to accomplish this activity. Additionally, even though the proposal has an objective to restore riparian habitat, none of its deliverables really address this need.

 


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

See the ISRP's programmatic comments on NPT RME program and BiOp gaps. They plan to have the status and trend monitoring plan done by summer 2014.

The ISRP specific qualifications on improving this proposal can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in the next review.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Success criteria for several of the project's objectives need to be developed plus several inconsistencies in deliverables (identified in section 4 below) need to be resolved.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
Success criteria for achieving Objective 1, "increase anadromous fish productivity and production" need to be developed. Overall, results should be judged in terms of improvements to fish productivity and production.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The Selway River is an attractive site for habitat restoration because private landownership is mainly in the lower 10% of the basin and the remaining 90% of the river is situated in the federally designated Selway Wilderness Area. Federal ownership should help ease the implementation of restoration actions. Also, the B-run steelhead of the Selway represents an important metapopulation in the Clearwater Basin as this population has never been supplemented with hatchery fish. The FCRPS Expert Panel Process for the Selway identified four limiting factors for the basin, and by far the most important was sedimentation which was given a weighting factor of 78%, followed by water temperature (10%), passage barriers (8%) and riparian vegetation (5%). The Nez Perce Tribe and Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest (U.S. Forest Service) have prioritized restoration actions in the Selway based on the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment, the Expert Panel Process and current watershed surveys. The overall goal of this proposal is to restore the Selway River watershed so the physical habitat of the basin no longer limits the recovery of ESA-listed steelhead. The project is important regionally because of its potential to restore the Selway River steelhead population to viable status.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status, and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments; however, it seems redundant to include this information under both Project Significance and Problem Statement. Note on page 4, ESU refers to “evolutionarily” not “ecologically” significant units.

The project has five objectives to: 1) increase anadromous fish abundance and productivity, 2) reduce sedimentation, 3) reduce fish passage barriers, 4) reduce the impact of roads and, 5) protect and restore riparian habitats. Objectives 2, 3, and 4 have success criteria that can be measured. No productivity or abundance goals were produced for Objective 1. Similarly, no success criteria were established for Objective 5 which deals with restoring riparian habitat.

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

Even though this project began recently, in August of 2011, a number of actions have been completed. Two culverts were replaced and opened approximately 9.5 miles of habitat. A road inventory using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package was started. This process was used on the O’Hara Creek Road and road segments contributing significant amounts of sediment were identified. Additionally four culvert surveys were completed in the Selway subbasin to identify which were likely to fail or block fish passage.

This proposal demonstrates that advice from the ISRP's review in 2006 has been taken seriously as the monitoring and adaptive management components of the proposal are much improved. However, the description of adaptive management refers to a “passive” approach. The ISAB (see ISAB 2011-4) and ISRP promote active adaptive management, consistent with the original definition of the term, in which experimentation is deliberate in order to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions. This approach places a value on knowledge to reduce uncertainty in the future as an outcome in itself, and requires formulation of alternative hypotheses and an experimental design to test those hypotheses.

The description of proposed monitoring under the Problem Statement and Monitoring (as DELV-5) is generally good. The main deficiency is that the proposal does not include provisions, or at least a description of such provisions, for measuring success in achieving Objective 1, increase anadromous fish productivity and production.

The proposal states that all the habitat actions will be monitored to determine if they meet expected goals. Results from this monitoring will be used to change or refine how restoration actions occur in the future. This approach was used to change how culverts are being replaced. The project is now using bottomless arch culverts or bridges as opposed to typical squash type culverts because the bottomless culverts are better able to pass flood waters and retain substrate. The Expert Panel Process also caused the project to key on populations in the Selway and on the factors that are limiting their abundance.

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

This is a collaborative project with personnel from the U.S. Forest Service’s Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest. The project complements a number of ongoing projects, including the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed programs, and the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Forest Restoration Act. The sponsors are also working with P. Roni and colleagues at NOAA Fisheries to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that will be used in the Selway and in other areas where the Tribe is conducting habitat restoration work.

Two emerging limiting factors are identified, climate change and invasive species. The possible effects of climate change are clearly stated. The sponsors are designing their restoration actions to account for impacts caused by climate. For example, culvert and bridge replacements are designed to accommodate 100-year flood events. Additionally it is hypothesized that riparian planting, improving stream complexity, reconnection of the floodplain, and improving fish passage will help dampen climate change effects.

Possible impacts caused by invasive plant and animal species were also identified as emerging limiting factors. In this case, a number of nonindigenous species of fish residing in the Selway River were identified. But no mention is made of how they might interact with native fish species and how such interactions might be addressed in the future. The possible consequences of invasive plants or weeds are described and some examples of the species of concern are given. Yet, no mention is made on how the effects of weeds might be dealt with in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 

Five of the six project deliverables, road decommissioning, fish passage, road improvements, inventory assessments, and project management are fairly well defined. For example, in the passage and road decommissioning and improvement deliverables specific future restoration actions are described. Inventories on culverts, bridges, and fords have taken place in the Selway subbasin. The deliverable for conducting inventories also presents future work, indicating that additional inventories on riparian and instream habitat condition, fish passage, and existing road network will occur. That being said some simple editing would improve the proposal as the aims of three of the deliverables change depending upon what portion of the proposal is examined. For instance in the proposal summary the deliverable for road decommission is 48 miles while in the Deliverable Section it equals 24 miles. Similar inconsistencies in the proposal summary and deliverables sections exist in the aims of the fish passage and road improvement deliverables. These conflicts need to be corrected. The deliverable that describes the monitoring efforts that are planned states that implementation and compliance as well as action effectiveness monitoring will take place. No mention, however, of status and trends monitoring is made. This type of monitoring should take place, and the sponsors need to indicate the methods that will be used to accomplish this activity. Additionally, even though the proposal has an objective to restore riparian habitat, none of its deliverables really address this need.

 


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

See the ISRP's programmatic comments on NPT RME program and BiOp gaps. They plan to have the status and trend monitoring plan done by summer 2014.

The ISRP specific qualifications on improving this proposal can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in the next review.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:12:05 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: 1) Reduced budget associated with riparian revegetation and noxious weed treatment; and 2) eliminate budget associated with culvert designs/replacements (work element 3a-q) and education component (work element 2b).
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1996-077-02 - Lolo/Selway River Watershed Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to "protect and restore" various watersheds:

Justifications need to address several questions for each individual project:

1. What was the historic and current status and importance of the focal species population(s) in this watershed?
2. What was the historic and current condition of the habitat?
3. What is the potential to restore this watershed?
4. And if restored, what contribution will this project make to the focal species' future?

The sponsors are encouraged to formulate a separate proposal to monitor and evaluate all such projects together with the entire budget devoted to this activity. This would provide consistency across projects, facilitate discovering the best methodologies to implement and monitor such projects, ensure the foundation for successful adaptive management, and reduce the monitoring burden on implementation teams. Linking to the Nez Perce Tribal Fish Hatchery monitoring would be an efficient way to deal with fish response while habitat factors could be evaluated separately, thus accounting for the fact that single habitat projects alone may be difficult to link to future fish response. The exception to this would be the relatively simple before/after monitoring of fish use and abundance above and below current passage barriers, which could be monitored as part of the individual habitat projects.

Removing passage barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production. Thus the ISRP seeks justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier (not just miles of stream) and the potential increase in fish use and benefit. Risks associated with exotic fish species should also be included. A quantitative evaluation of habitat quality and quantity above each barrier should play a major role in prioritizing barrier replacement/removal projects. Similar logic can be followed for other projects (such as road decommissioning or weed management).

Several proposals included weed control, but no species or strategies were included. The only identifiable budget items were herbicide-related, which alone does not constitute a supportable strategy. Establishment or improvement of desirable alternative vegetation was not described. The sponsors should ensure that integrated pest management practices are followed and include quantifiable population or species distribution goals. Projects should employ a landscape level perspective. Developing such a program may require a cooperative effort with other landowners and agencies involved in invasive species control.

ISRP comments specific to this proposal 199607702:

The project's purpose is to rehabilitate stream and riparian processes in the Lolo Creek watershed that were damaged by human activities: logging, road building, mining, farming, and grazing. Chinook salmon and steelhead are the focal species that are to benefit from improved habitat. Five other salmonid species are involved. The sponsors see disrupted sediment regimes as a major problem. To resolve it, they will focus work on road obliteration and streambank stabilization. The latter involves bioengineering methods and riparian plantings. They also will replace culverts that block fish passage.

The ISRP agrees that the project will benefit the focal and non-focal species and recommends that it is fundable.

Note: Some of the sponsors' response to ISRP comments was done in ways that required much time-consuming further review. The main problem was brief reference to lengthy attached documents instead of writing direct answers.

The ISRP found that the proposal adequately analyzed problems and showed significance to regional programs and relationships to other projects.

The proposal's project history section was inadequate. It did not include quantified evidence of the project's physical and biological results. The ISRP asked for a response on effectiveness of project activities in terms of habitat created or improved and in terms of fish produced. The sponsors did not rewrite the project history but instead attached a 94-page report on (rather preliminary) physical and biological monitoring of Lolo Creek—and asked for ISRP comments on it. The report contains much data and some brief analyses from measurements of 11 parameters, covering the years 2003 to 2005, apparently the first period in which this monitoring was done for the 10-year-old project. Therefore, little or no time-trend information exists, but it was helpful to see the report's methods. In the future, it would be more helpful for the sponsors to summarize pertinent material from such reports in the proposal itself.

The sponsors added that their project is minimally funded for biological M&E, and they referred to fish population monitoring being done under project #198335003. It would be appropriate for the sponsor to present and interpret data from that other project in the present project's proposal.

In addition, the sponsors attached reports on monitoring of the road decommissioning effort and of culvert replacement (41 pages in total). Again, the results embodied in these reports should have been incorporated in the narrative proposal's project history.

The ISRP commented that the general thrust of the objectives is sound, but their organization and clarity could be improved. The difference between certain objectives was unclear and needed to be rethought and reorganized and clarified in a response. The sponsors did this in editing their revised proposal. (But instead of describing the changes in the response document, they just said there that they had done it, forcing reviewers to spend much time and expense searching and comparing texts of the original and revised proposals to find out what the changes were.)

The proposal inadequately described monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans. In particular, the methods for biological M&E were unacceptably sketchy. ISRP asked sponsors to present a thorough M&E program, including the appropriate statistical design. In response, the sponsors pointed to lack of direction and agreement within the Columbia Basin on monitoring strategies, again referenced the monitoring report for 2005, and said they would appreciate ISRP "input." They say that the NPCC limitation of 5% of project budget for M&E will prevent them from implementing "the monitoring plan in the future, to its full capacity." Review of their attached monitoring reports indicates that judicious sampling design improvements by statistical consultants (possibly including omission of some parameters) might reduce the M&E program's size without hampering effectiveness. This project's M&E value may be much reduced by lack of pre-construction measurements.

The ISRP recommended that, in the response loop, the Nez Perce Tribe prioritize and rank the numerous proposals submitted under "protect and restore" titles. This was covered in response attachments.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
A specific response was not provided for this proposal rather only a response to the ISRP's group review. Consequently, the ISRP's specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not fully justified. The Tribe ranked this in the second tier of protect and restore projects. 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.



ISRP preliminary comments (June 2006): Response requested. The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response, 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?



The Selway is important for sustaining and increasing populations of listed salmonids. IDFG has rated the Selway as having high potential for recovering steelhead. The proposal is consistent with the Biological Opinion, the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, and the USFWS draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, it includes collaboration with the Nez Perce NF and complements several BPA- and non-BPA funded projects. Much of the habitat in the watershed is in reasonably good condition, but some sections are degraded.



In areas where sediment control is proposed, how large of a problem is sedimentation in that area and how much habitat is being affected? Where barrier removal is proposed, is the habitat above the barriers suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Most objectives are only generally stated and methods are not clearly described and referenced so that scientific adequacy could be assessed. Frequently, the work elements bear little relationship to the objective. The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. A response is needed on the issues raised above.



The ISRP concludes that if a convincing case can be made for removal of the four problem culverts (e.g., will open large rearing area and will not permit access of exotics, specifically brook trout), a one-year project for their removal would be expected to provide some benefit.



The monitoring program was not well explained. M&E needs to have an assessment of brook trout distribution in the Selway.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1996-077-02
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Road decommissioning and culvert removal; appears to occur on FS lands as well as private lands; confirm that activities on FS lands covered by BPA-FS MOU; confirm that screening/other criteria ensure that BPA not funding activities other entities required to perform; confirm that cost share is reasonable.
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-092-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Culvert replacements on FS lands; assume covered by BPA-FS MOU.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-077-02-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1996-077-02
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2007-092-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-092-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2007-092-00 effective on 11/1/2016
Relationship Description: Project 2007-092-00 has been merged with project 1996-077-02. The entire budget and work elements have been moved to project 1996-77-02


Name Role Organization
Heidi McRoberts Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Marcie Carter Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Mark Johnson Technical Contact Nez Perce Tribe
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Justin Peterson Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Jennifer Lord Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration