Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-093-00 - Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-093-00 - Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages
Project Number:
Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages
Restore Middle Fork drainages to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed resotration projects such as culvert replacement, road inventory and road obliteration.
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Focal Species:
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
BiOp Association:

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

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: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-093-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-093-00 - Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-093-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-093-00 - Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages
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 specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not justified. The tribe ranked this in its second tier compared to other "protect and restore" projects. For full ISRP 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 loop, 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?

This is a duplicate of 200709200 for a group of small basins on the north slope of the Clearwater. It proposes to identify culvert, road sediment, and grazing impacts on local streams, after which actions will be implemented. The problem of habitat degradation in the Middle Fork is discussed in general terms, but not whether restoration will take place in the tributaries and/or mainstem. Very little is said about habitat conditions and the amount of available, or potentially available habitat in the tributaries targeted for projects. The sponsors state that resident fish occur in the tributaries but they do not identify the species or provide abundance estimates. The sponsors do not indicate whether the streams where passage will be restored historically supported anadromous fish.

One specific culvert is identified for replacement. Is the habitat above the barrier suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Potential risk of exotic fish should be assessed for barrier removals. For sediment control, how large a problem is sediment and how much habitat is affected? The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. Without more specific baseline information and objectives, M&E cannot adequately be explained or evaluated.

Overall, there is insufficient detail for scientific assessment. The need for restoration is insufficiently justified. Objectives are very general and not directly related to work elements. The methods and monitoring program are not clearly described and referenced. The sponsors should develop a reasonable basis for and project the quantitative benefits expected.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-093-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-093-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Culvert replacements, road decommis. on FS lands, also riparian fencing; assume covered by BPA-FS MOU.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-093-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-093-00
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: None