Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
Project Number:
1999-017-00
Title:
Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
Summary:
Lapwai Creek is a major tributary to the Clearwater River, joining it 11 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho. The watershed drains approximately 267 square miles and ranges in elevation between 856 ft at the mouth and over 4,800 ft. near the origin. Precipitation ranges from an annual average of 18 inches at Lapwai to more than 26 inches at the higher elevations. The watershed geology is comprised primarily of Columbia River basalt with dispersed outcrops of Idaho Batholith Granites. Most of the land within the watershed is used for agriculture with dry land grains and cattle among the most important products. The landownership is mixed with private, state, federal, and tribal entities as significant owners.

The Lapwai Creek Watershed provides habitat for a variety of anadromous and resident fish. The anadromous stocks include wild A-run Snake River Steelhead (listed as Threatened under the ESA - February 5, 1999, 56 FR 5740), Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (listed as Threatened under the ESA - December 28, 1993, 58 FR 68543), and recently reintroduced Coho salmon. Resident fish include rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss), suckers (Catostomus spp.), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus), as well as dace (Rhinichtys spp.) and sculpin (Cottus spp.) species. Local oral histories of the Nez Perce Tribe refer to the region’s once significant salmon runs. Like many anadromous streams in the Columbia River Basin, salmon and steelhead populations have declined significantly from historic levels. StreamNet database lists Lapwai Creek with 31.5 Km of anadromous fish habitat (spawning and rearing). The overall habitat quality has been assessed as 20.9 km fair (66.4%) and 10.6 km (33.6%) as poor. Despite current habitat conditions, rainbow-steelhead production continues to persist in the middle reaches of Lapwai Creek. It is believed that considerable potential exists for improving anadromous fish populations in these and other areas of Lapwai Creek (Kucera et al. 1983).

The Lapwai Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Project was originally funded by BPA in 1999 to complete a watershed analysis. Since that time, the NPT Watershed Division has been working on resource assessments and project implementation throughout the Lapwai Creek watershed. Prior to the initiation of this project, a massive data gap existed on fish, the condition of fish habitat, and limiting factors within the watershed. Only a minimal amount of baseline data collection had occurred. We felt it was of utmost importance to address this issue prior to any large-scale implementation of restoration activity. Thus, the early years of the project (1999-2001) were focused on watershed assessment and subbasin planning. Unfortunately, these efforts were very broad in scope, and the watershed assessment was based on what minimal data existed on the watershed at that time. This proved to be much too coarse to provide any substantial direction or guide our restoration activities.

To fill this data gap, beginning in 2002 we developed and/or modified existing protocols to facilitate the collection of relevant baseline data within the watershed. In realizing that this data collection phase would involve a substantial amount of manpower and take several years to complete, NPT Watershed in collaboration with the Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (NPSWCD) began implementing watershed rehabilitation activities concurrently with data gathering activities. Due to the lack of a comprehensive, detailed watershed assessment to help prioritize restoration activities, implementation activities since 2002 have been concentrated on the “hot spots” or obvious areas in need of rehabilitation (e.g., livestock feeding operations, un-vegetated riparian areas, passage barriers, and areas with direct livestock access to the stream). For example, the NPSWCD has treated and or removed all winter livestock feeding areas adjacent to major streams within the watershed. Additionally, NPT Watershed has completed several livestock exclusion projects. As mentioned previously, these projects have been implemented in the interim while the detailed baseline data collection phase is completed. The NPT Water Resources Division, Watershed Division, and NPSWCD are all involved in the data collection/analysis process. By fall 2007, a very comprehensive baseline data set for the Lapwai Creek watershed should be assembled. These data sets will include: 1.) fish distribution and abundance data, 2.) fish habitat data, 3.) riparian canopy data, 4.) thermal imagery, 5.) LiDar imagery, 6.) water quality data, and 7.) aquatic/riparian assessments. These data will be compiled and analyzed together in 2007 to create a 10-year restoration plan for the Lapwai Creek Watershed. This important plan will be used to prioritize, select, and justify future watershed restoration and protection activities in the Lapwai Watershed.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1999
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Trout, Brown
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Lapwai Creek watershed and land ownership within the watershed.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 8

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

Work Element E preliminary stream alignment design for Rock Creek Restoration Project.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 13

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

Work Element F on lower Spring Creek site post weed treatment.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 14

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

Work Element K, riparian planting along Lapwai Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 19

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

Work Element M, alternative water source upgraded with permanent power on Tribal Allotment 365.

Figure Name: Figure 6

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 20

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

Riparian plantings along Sweetwater Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 7

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 23

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

March 2011, Work Element S: Presenting poster of Spring Creek Wetland Restoration at Idaho Chapter of American Fisheries Society meeting in Boise, Idaho.

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657

October 2010, Work Element S: Lapwai High School interns assists with knotweed injection. This area was later planted to native trees and shrubs. This work was associated with Work Elements F.

Figure Name: Figure 9

Document ID: P126314

Document: Protect and Restore the Lapwai Creek Watershed; 5/10 - 4/11

Page Number: 27

Project: 1999-017-00

Contract: 52657


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) $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $379,190

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $379,190
FY2017 (Current) $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $256,440

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $403,012 $403,012 $403,012 $256,440
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $403,012 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $403,012 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 5 %
FY2012 17 %
FY2011 10 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 16 %
FY2008 30 %
FY2007 24 %
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
4497 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1999-17 REHABILITATE LAPWAI CREEK History $1,082,389 3/1/2001 - 2/28/2005
21342 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1999 017 00 PROTECT AND RESTORE THE LAPWAI CREEK WATERSHED History $466,064 3/1/2005 - 2/28/2006
26503 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1999 017 00 LAPWAI CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION History $456,194 3/1/2006 - 2/28/2007
72548 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1999-017-00 EXP NPT LAPWAI CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Issued $403,012 5/1/2016 - 4/30/2017
75888 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1999-017-00 EXP LAPWAI CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION Issued $403,012 5/1/2017 - 4/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):17
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:58
On time:26
Avg Days Late:17

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
4497 21342, 26503, 31922, 37309, 42176, 46784, 52657, 57071, 61000, 64966, 68672, 72548, 75888 1999-17 REHABILITATE LAPWAI CREEK Nez Perce Tribe 03/2001 03/2001 Issued 58 190 12 0 40 242 83.47% 0
Project Totals 58 190 12 0 40 242 83.47% 0


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-017-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1999-017-00
Completed Date: 9/27/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of Results

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

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

  •  1,5800.0 feet of riparian exclusion fence
  •  850.0 ft of levee removal
  •  720.0 ft of bank stabilization
  •  25.0 acres planted to native grasses
  •  9.0 acres of riparian shrub and tree planting
  •  7.0 acres of restored wetland
Qualification #1 - Fish Passage
For fish passage, it is stated that 60% of the historical habitat has been blocked and that two of the highest priority projects, out of a total of twelve, have been completed and two additional ones are awaiting agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Reviewers note that priority passage work other than that identified with BOR does not seem to be incorporated into the current five year plan and this seems out of line with a comprehensive restoration program. The ISRP realizes that passage projects might indeed be planned but not mentioned in the proposal or, if perhaps habitat above barriers also needs restoration, the sponsors might choose to focus first on that habitat. This issue can be resolved during the contract process.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A response is requested on the following items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

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

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

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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 11:01:14 AM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/9/2013)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1999-017-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1999-017-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualification related to implementation planning in contracting. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Fish Passage—Sponsor to address ISRP qualification related to implementation planning in contracting.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1999-017-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1999-017-00
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: Watershed restoration, mix of tribal and private lands; multiple activities proposed; need confirmation BPA funding not being utilized for specific practices that other entity required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-017-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1999-017-00
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: 1999-017-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
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:
This is an ISRP response to the fix it loop for proposal 199901700 Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed (NPT) and 200207000 Lapwai Creek Anadromous Habitat (NPSWCD) - integrated sister projects to address habitat restoration and protection on Lapwai Creek on tribal and private land, respectively.

The sponsors addressed the questions raised by the ISRP in the preliminary review. The adequacy of the answers varied by question. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for the time and effort in producing the revised proposal narrative and explanations of the projects' history.

The ISRP had many questions for the sponsors, so the evaluation of the response to each is beyond the space and time available in this fix it loop review. Briefly, the proposal(s) were to execute tasks related to both inventory and assessment of fish populations and habitat, and habitat restoration implementation. From the proposal it was not clear to the ISRP how important to the focal species the watershed was; the focal species current status in the watershed; the role the watershed could contribute to the focal species' status if restored; if the watershed could be restored; and how long it would take.

Replies were provided to the ISRP's questions and a revised narrative was produced. The answers to the questions and the narrative revision go a long way to clarifying for the ISRP the status and progress of anadromous fish species (primarily steelhead) and restoration potential in this watershed. Much more is needed however, before the ISRP can confidently assess whether the proposed activities in the Lapwai Creek system are scientifically sound, have quantifiable biological objectives that are measurable, and will benefit fish and wildlife (A-run steelhead).

Sponsors indicate that it became apparent early in the project history (1999) that insufficient data existed to effectively address improving the status of anadromous fish in Lapwai Creek. Little was known about the status of the fish or the habitat. In the intervening period the sponsors state they have treated "hot spots" of habitat degradation, and nearly completed inventories of habitat conditions and fish population status. They report that inventory work will be completed in 2006 and that evaluation and analysis should be prepared in 2007.

In the current revised narrative the biological objectives are tasks. The sponsors provide an ultimate goal: "to protect and restore the ecological and biological functions of the Lapwai Creek Watershed to assist in the recovery of anadromous and resident fish species," and this is reasonable. What is needed is a specific goal, with a timeframe for changes in habitat conditions and fish population abundance and productivity. Sponsors clarify for the ISRP their understanding of compliance and effectiveness monitoring, and inform the ISRP that they appreciate the necessity of effectiveness monitoring, but that it is beyond the willingness of Council and BPA to fund those data collections and analysis. The ISRP understands the constraints placed on sponsors, but also believes sponsors need to be creative in developing methods to determine whether their restoration efforts are providing a benefit. Can riparian habitat be evaluated by photopoints or aerial photography and be cost effective, how can stream flow and stream temperature be monitored? How can adult fish in and smolts out be measured?

Sponsors indicate that stream habitat and watershed inventories, and fish population abundance will be completed soon and final assessments available in 2007. Based on that commitment, these projects are Fundable in Part (incrementally). In 2007, fundable only for completion of the inventory and assessments. Possibly fundable in 2008 and 2009 for restoration actions contingent upon a proposal narrative that uses those assessments to establish biological objectives, strategies and actions to get to those objectives, and an approach to measure whether progress is being made in achieving the objectives.

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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1999-017-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1999-017-00 - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable in part. Funding in FY 2007 to complete reports on abundance, habitat status and a comprehensive presentation of prioritized restoration projects. Funding for restoration actions in 08 and 09 is conditioned on favorable ISRP and Council review of revised proposal linked to completed reports (per ISRP comments). 2007 Revised Budget: Significant reductions in salaries (FTEs), implementation tasks, land leasing, and NEPA/Cultural consultations. Implementation of proposed tasks at 100% is dependent on the acquisition of supplemental funding.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Emmit Taylor, Jr. Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Mark Fritsch Interested Party Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Bobby Hills Interested Party Nez Perce Tribe
Marcie Carter Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Travis House Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Mary Hoxer (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Lord Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Elisabeth Bowers Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration