Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-092-00 - Restore Selway River Watershed
Project Number:
2007-092-00
Title:
Restore Selway River Watershed
Summary:
This project is implemented as part of the Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF)/Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) restoration partnership. This unique and successful restoration partnership began in the Clearwater Subbasin in 1996, and this project is a newly funded BiOp effort initiated in 2011 to perform high priority watershed restoration actions in the Selway River watershed.

The 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 Selway River watershed contains proposed critical habitat for listed species steelhead trout, potential critical habitat for bull trout, and has moderate habitat potential for spring Chinook salmon. Restoration follows a ridge top to ridge top approach with implementation focused on restoring riparian processes by addressing increased water temperatures, increased sedimentation, cattle grazing effects, aquatic habitat connectivity, and exotic invasive plants. The cost share on this project has been contributed by the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest who provides at least a 20% match including cash and in-kind contributions. Project planning and implementation responsibilities are also shared with the Nez Perce - Clearwater National Forest.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
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
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2018

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
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
2016 (Draft)
2015 $251,849 42 %
2014 $227,341 83 %
2013 $86,051 30 %
2012 $57,860 22 %
2011 $78,543 28 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
53830 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED History $297,078 8/1/2011 - 3/31/2013
60374 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED History $178,241 4/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
64568 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED History $47,402 4/1/2014 - 3/31/2015
68391 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED 2015 History $342,130 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2016
71444 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-092-00 EXP RESTORE SELWAY RIVER WATERSHED 2016 History $163,435 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):6
Completed:6
On time:6
Status Reports
Completed:23
On time:15
Avg Days Early:3

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 23 30 0 0 0 30 100.00% 2


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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:

Council Recommendation

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.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

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: 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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:

Council Recommendation

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:

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 1996-077-02 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
Mark Johnson Technical Contact Nez Perce Tribe
Justin Peterson Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Sandra Fife Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration