The proposal provides a well designed and thoughtful approach for the restoration of the Lochsa. It is process-based and provides a multi-disciplinary approach to implementing whole watershed restoration. It builds on a long standing and successful partnership between the NPT and the U.S. Forest Service and others. It has a solid track record of performance and has made positive changes over time, many apparently prompted by past ISRP review. The proposal provides a very complete and science-based approach for restoration that could be used as a template for other proposals in the basin. It is excellent to see such an improvement on experimental design and analysis.

The following paragraph from the Results section seems to hold several key issues. The ISRP believes the issues raised pertain to program-wide RME issues but feels the issues are worth stating here for the project sponsors to consider. "As shown in the Significant to Regional Programs and Technical sections, a substantial quantity of fisheries data has been collected in, and assessments developed for, the Lochsa River watershed. As these data were collected by other agencies for supplementation monitoring, fisheries abundance monitoring, U.S. Forest Service Clearwater National Forest Plan and EA/EIS and TMDL development,they provide useful baseline information but are not response signals to discrete restoration activities. As such, while this information is displayed to reflect data currently available within the project area, it is not suitable for evaluating efficacy of ongoing implementation actions. Future PRLWP implementation, compliance and action effectiveness monitoring will be addressed through the programmatic monitoring plan currently under development by the NPT Watershed Division and the programmatic action effectiveness monitoring program currently under development by BPA. Additionally, the PRLWP is hopeful that CHaMP surveys may be conducted in future years to address the relative lack of status and trend data available for the project area." We agree that fish population changes reflect many things going on in the fishes' universe and stream habitat is just a part. BUT changes in fish survival prior to smolting, their growth, and their distribution in rearing habitat are clearly the best indicators of habitat quality and quantity, including how it is altered and protected by the sponsors. So is it not the best indicator of what is really limiting and thus the best indicator to guide future actions?

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

This project is an important component of the effort to restore fish and habitat in the Clearwater subbasin. It is a merging of three prior individual projects (1996, 2002, and 2007) to increase administrative and financial efficiencies. It is a partnership effort between the Nez Perce Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service but involves others including the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality which has established TMDL's for sediment and thermal loading. There is a long record of cost sharing and development of a strong multi-disciplinary staff by the sharing of a wide array of diverse technical skills including engineering, soils, hydrology, and forestry in addition to fisheries scientists.

About 95% of the drainage is in National Forest System ownership and 5% in private industrial forest land, mainly in the headwaters. The proposal is clearly designed to establish a strategic foundation for restoration using an impressive array of the current science and literature regarding landscape and ecosystem restoration. There is a clear linkage discussing the prioritization of key processes to target for restoration including sediment introduction and transport and thermal loading of the streams and the development of priority projects using a variety of assessment tools and plans. A solid case is made that high road densities and steep slopes and erosive soils lead to high rates of sediment delivery to streams, particularly via mass wasting. The proposal employs a ridgetop to ridgetop approach of whole watershed treatments, and there is good use of citations throughout the introduction and description of objectives.

There is excellent use of the selected technical tools in the development of treatments and project plans including LIDAR imagery for roads analysis, temperature modeling for identification of priority treatment areas, and GRAIP modeling to select the most cost effective suites of road treatments for decommissioning and improvement.

There is very good use of past project-scale monitoring and evaluation to inform location and design of treatments. A particularly good example is the assessment of log sills which were installed in the 1990s for restoration and how information from that work has been used to alter the overall focus of the program such as targeting upslope sediment sources mainly due to roads and to confirm the viability of wood structures when used in the stream environment and the modification of their design to ensure juvenile fish passage.

An objective of at least 16% increase in habitat quality by 2018 is provided, but there is no discussion of how or when that is to be measured and by whom. It mentions a target of 3% for 2010-2012 but does not provide any information on if, or how well, that objective was met. It is offered that some increase in habitat quality has been found using 6 habitat attributes through PIBO monitoring, but the proposal is silent on whether that monitoring will continue or if/how it will be coordinated and integrated with CHAMP.

Second, the proposal talks about the benefits of focusing restoration in priority areas citing Reeves et al. 1995 and Frissel and Bayles 1996 that discusses identification of refugia and then building upon them. The proposal also discusses a Watershed Condition Framework and Action Plans that uses selection and focus of essential work in a single focus watershed. The proposal, however, does not identify which watersheds or Assessment units are the highest priority and which have been selected for near term treatment.

Seven objectives are identified, presumably for the time period 2014-2018. Three of these utilize quantitative measures and the remainder only provided metrics that will be used to measure them. There is no discussion of how these will be used or weighted in determining success or how or when that is to be done.

It appears that a good deal of project location, prioritization, and design is contingent upon ongoing assessments, especially for road decommissioning/improvement and fish passage restoration, yet there is no timeline provided for their geographic focus, timing or expected completion. Their phased completion for priority watersheds or their completion for the whole watershed would seem to be critical to ensure that the full suite of conditions are known at the time of project identification. Additionally, there is little quantification for each of the 13 deliverables that are identified which is likely a result of this situation.

The project has seven objectives. Each has a stated goal, but quantitative success or end points are often lacking. Objective 4 for example, is to restore vegetative diversity. Success is defined as number of acres planted, percent survival of transplanted plants, and control of noxious weeds. However, no quantitative end points are provided, how many acres might be planted per year, what is the survival goal of transplanted plants, what type of plant diversity and density per unit of area are being sought after, and how many acres might be treated for weeds on a yearly basis. Details like this help flesh out these objectives and provide a means for the project to assess its performance.

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

The current project started in 2007 but is a combination of 3 projects that were being implemented separately with the oldest dating to 1996. A good deal of excellent ecological assessment, restoration, and implementation and effectiveness monitoring has been completed. It appears that there is some indication that past treatments are resulting in improved conditions, especially fish passage habitat quality (PIBO trend) and fine sediment less than 2mm (PIBO). Also, numerous improvements to the location and design of road, culvert, and instream LWD are reported as a result evaluating and utilizing data from past monitoring as well as the use of new science and technology including LIDAR, GRAIPS and ARC GIS Model Builder to improve the location and design of various road restoration treatments. Additionally, there have been changes in project direction and scope and a refinement of limiting factors through completion of the FCRPS BiOp and use of an expert panel.

There is a good discussion of the sponsor's response to past ISRP comments. Specific changes associated with monitoring and application of results and design of fish passage at road-stream crossings are described. Percent fines are measured at pool tail-outs, an approach that is probably more appropriate biologically than is often done by other projects, but seems to remain a consistency issue. "Despite ongoing sediment reduction efforts in the Imnamatnoon subwatershed, no conclusions can be drawn in relation to the WRP restoration efforts, due to location and the limited number of sample sites." It is also not clear how complete the response has been in addressing definitions for determining habitat diversity and complexity.

Evaluation of Results

There is a solid track record of results including an improved understanding of the watershed and implementation of a whole watershed suite of integrated, restoration treatments; evaluation and application of past monitoring to improve the design and effectiveness of many restoration treatments; and application of new science and techniques to improve the design and scope of the restoration program.

There appear to be serious impediments to completion of priority work relating to reducing road densities in key areas, with much of those areas in a checkerboard of private and National Forest Service ownership, and in the re-alignment and/or decommissioning of numerous valley bottom, stream adjacent roads which are reported to have significant socio economic issues. These are reportedly being worked on.

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

Three emerging limiting factors were identified, climate change, invasive species, and spills of fuel or chemicals. The potential effects of all of these limiting factors were clearly presented. Specific strategies to mediate their potential effects were not presented, however. Instead, it is hoped that restoring natural functions, for example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity in the riparian zone, eliminating passage barriers, and decommissioning roads will lessen the potential impacts of these factors. Another potential source of limiting factors, the failure to purchase private forest lands in the upper Lochsa was not specifically mentioned as an emerging issue. Some discussion should be directed to what steps the project may take if private forest lands cannot be purchased and instead are logged or developed. Impacts from these activities could compromise many of the downstream actions being proposed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has 13 deliverablesand includes a number of important items, not often included in other proposals including the treatment of dispersed recreation sites, an outreach and education component and a program for conservation easement and land acquisition. However, mostof these are not described in quantitative terms apparently due to the fact that many projects are waiting the completion of various assessments or have not been fully-identified and designed. Explanations for why the work needs to be accomplished are provided, and in some cases, a general description of methods is also given. Elsewhere in the proposal specific goals, for example the number and location of planned culvert replacements, are provided. None of the actual work goals that would fall under a deliverable are mentioned making it difficult to determine how work will actually proceed over the course of the project. This type of detail should be included in the deliverables. Additionally, one deliverable covers project management. The activities described in deliverables 2, 5, and 7 should be combined into this deliverable as all of them appear to deal with project management topics.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There has been a wide variety of past implementation and effectiveness monitoring. There are good examples of how this has provided findings that have had direct relevance in improving current project location, design, and effectiveness. It is mentioned that habitat status and trend information has been useful in this regard and is being provided by the PIBO monitoring program. Unfortunately, there is no discussion of the future status of this monitoring as the program begins using CHAMP.

There is recognition of new programmatic monitoring (AEM, CHAMP and ISEMP) and reported development of a watershed restoration monitoring plan to detail future integration into the ongoing program. This plan is to be delivered in the next 6-8 months, but there is no discussion as to its current status. This is mentioned in Programmatic Comments and review of this plan by ISRP would likely be beneficial.

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

This is a well-written proposal that reflects current science and the application of landscape scale/whole watershed restoration. The ISRP's qualifications listed below can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in future reviews.

More details are needed about specific, quantitative accomplishments that are expected over the life of the proposal. Currently, these are not provided for most deliverables. The objectives and deliverables need to be expanded to indicate explicit end points. The total amount of work that is expected to occur is clearly stated, it simply needs to be allocated to project years and specific deliverables.

A listing of the current focus watersheds that are a priority for treatment, a discussion of how they were selected and a summary of the strategic considerations would be useful.

It is pointed out that roads and associated issues are the primary factors limiting habitat productivity and that a large share of the worst road issues are on private land or located in valley bottom areas, both having major socio-economic issues impeding their correction. It would be useful to see a discussion as to whether the target of 16% habitat improvement can be achieved without treating these areas, and what groups of other treatments, on other areas, could provide the greatest benefit. Basically, this would be an alternative strategy/contingency plan to be followed if negotiations for a conservation easement or purchase are unsuccessful.

Additional detail is needed on monitoring and evaluation as tied to the NPT Plan that is currently in development. This is discussed in more detail under Programmatic Comments.

Consideration should be given to having the ISRP review the watershed restoration monitoring plan that will be completed within a year.

The proposal provides a well designed and thoughtful approach for the restoration of the Lochsa. It is process-based and provides a multi-disciplinary approach to implementing whole watershed restoration. It builds on a long standing and successful partnership between the NPT and the U.S. Forest Service and others. It has a solid track record of performance and has made positive changes over time, many apparently prompted by past ISRP review. The proposal provides a very complete and science-based approach for restoration that could be used as a template for other proposals in the basin. It is excellent to see such an improvement on experimental design and analysis.

The following paragraph from the Results section seems to hold several key issues. The ISRP believes the issues raised pertain to program-wide RME issues but feels the issues are worth stating here for the project sponsors to consider. "As shown in the Significant to Regional Programs and Technical sections, a substantial quantity of fisheries data has been collected in, and assessments developed for, the Lochsa River watershed. As these data were collected by other agencies for supplementation monitoring, fisheries abundance monitoring, U.S. Forest Service Clearwater National Forest Plan and EA/EIS and TMDL development,they provide useful baseline information but are not response signals to discrete restoration activities. As such, while this information is displayed to reflect data currently available within the project area, it is not suitable for evaluating efficacy of ongoing implementation actions. Future PRLWP implementation, compliance and action effectiveness monitoring will be addressed through the programmatic monitoring plan currently under development by the NPT Watershed Division and the programmatic action effectiveness monitoring program currently under development by BPA. Additionally, the PRLWP is hopeful that CHaMP surveys may be conducted in future years to address the relative lack of status and trend data available for the project area." We agree that fish population changes reflect many things going on in the fishes' universe and stream habitat is just a part. BUT changes in fish survival prior to smolting, their growth, and their distribution in rearing habitat are clearly the best indicators of habitat quality and quantity, including how it is altered and protected by the sponsors. So is it not the best indicator of what is really limiting and thus the best indicator to guide future actions?

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

This project is an important component of the effort to restore fish and habitat in the Clearwater subbasin. It is a merging of three prior individual projects (1996, 2002, and 2007) to increase administrative and financial efficiencies. It is a partnership effort between the Nez Perce Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service but involves others including the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality which has established TMDL's for sediment and thermal loading. There is a long record of cost sharing and development of a strong multi-disciplinary staff by the sharing of a wide array of diverse technical skills including engineering, soils, hydrology, and forestry in addition to fisheries scientists.

About 95% of the drainage is in National Forest System ownership and 5% in private industrial forest land, mainly in the headwaters. The proposal is clearly designed to establish a strategic foundation for restoration using an impressive array of the current science and literature regarding landscape and ecosystem restoration. There is a clear linkage discussing the prioritization of key processes to target for restoration including sediment introduction and transport and thermal loading of the streams and the development of priority projects using a variety of assessment tools and plans. A solid case is made that high road densities and steep slopes and erosive soils lead to high rates of sediment delivery to streams, particularly via mass wasting. The proposal employs a ridgetop to ridgetop approach of whole watershed treatments, and there is good use of citations throughout the introduction and description of objectives.

There is excellent use of the selected technical tools in the development of treatments and project plans including LIDAR imagery for roads analysis, temperature modeling for identification of priority treatment areas, and GRAIP modeling to select the most cost effective suites of road treatments for decommissioning and improvement.

There is very good use of past project-scale monitoring and evaluation to inform location and design of treatments. A particularly good example is the assessment of log sills which were installed in the 1990s for restoration and how information from that work has been used to alter the overall focus of the program such as targeting upslope sediment sources mainly due to roads and to confirm the viability of wood structures when used in the stream environment and the modification of their design to ensure juvenile fish passage.

An objective of at least 16% increase in habitat quality by 2018 is provided, but there is no discussion of how or when that is to be measured and by whom. It mentions a target of 3% for 2010-2012 but does not provide any information on if, or how well, that objective was met. It is offered that some increase in habitat quality has been found using 6 habitat attributes through PIBO monitoring, but the proposal is silent on whether that monitoring will continue or if/how it will be coordinated and integrated with CHAMP.

Second, the proposal talks about the benefits of focusing restoration in priority areas citing Reeves et al. 1995 and Frissel and Bayles 1996 that discusses identification of refugia and then building upon them. The proposal also discusses a Watershed Condition Framework and Action Plans that uses selection and focus of essential work in a single focus watershed. The proposal, however, does not identify which watersheds or Assessment units are the highest priority and which have been selected for near term treatment.

Seven objectives are identified, presumably for the time period 2014-2018. Three of these utilize quantitative measures and the remainder only provided metrics that will be used to measure them. There is no discussion of how these will be used or weighted in determining success or how or when that is to be done.

It appears that a good deal of project location, prioritization, and design is contingent upon ongoing assessments, especially for road decommissioning/improvement and fish passage restoration, yet there is no timeline provided for their geographic focus, timing or expected completion. Their phased completion for priority watersheds or their completion for the whole watershed would seem to be critical to ensure that the full suite of conditions are known at the time of project identification. Additionally, there is little quantification for each of the 13 deliverables that are identified which is likely a result of this situation.

The project has seven objectives. Each has a stated goal, but quantitative success or end points are often lacking. Objective 4 for example, is to restore vegetative diversity. Success is defined as number of acres planted, percent survival of transplanted plants, and control of noxious weeds. However, no quantitative end points are provided, how many acres might be planted per year, what is the survival goal of transplanted plants, what type of plant diversity and density per unit of area are being sought after, and how many acres might be treated for weeds on a yearly basis. Details like this help flesh out these objectives and provide a means for the project to assess its performance.

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

The current project started in 2007 but is a combination of 3 projects that were being implemented separately with the oldest dating to 1996. A good deal of excellent ecological assessment, restoration, and implementation and effectiveness monitoring has been completed. It appears that there is some indication that past treatments are resulting in improved conditions, especially fish passage habitat quality (PIBO trend) and fine sediment less than 2mm (PIBO). Also, numerous improvements to the location and design of road, culvert, and instream LWD are reported as a result evaluating and utilizing data from past monitoring as well as the use of new science and technology including LIDAR, GRAIPS and ARC GIS Model Builder to improve the location and design of various road restoration treatments. Additionally, there have been changes in project direction and scope and a refinement of limiting factors through completion of the FCRPS BiOp and use of an expert panel.

There is a good discussion of the sponsor's response to past ISRP comments. Specific changes associated with monitoring and application of results and design of fish passage at road-stream crossings are described. Percent fines are measured at pool tail-outs, an approach that is probably more appropriate biologically than is often done by other projects, but seems to remain a consistency issue. "Despite ongoing sediment reduction efforts in the Imnamatnoon subwatershed, no conclusions can be drawn in relation to the WRP restoration efforts, due to location and the limited number of sample sites." It is also not clear how complete the response has been in addressing definitions for determining habitat diversity and complexity.

Evaluation of Results

There is a solid track record of results including an improved understanding of the watershed and implementation of a whole watershed suite of integrated, restoration treatments; evaluation and application of past monitoring to improve the design and effectiveness of many restoration treatments; and application of new science and techniques to improve the design and scope of the restoration program.

There appear to be serious impediments to completion of priority work relating to reducing road densities in key areas, with much of those areas in a checkerboard of private and National Forest Service ownership, and in the re-alignment and/or decommissioning of numerous valley bottom, stream adjacent roads which are reported to have significant socio economic issues. These are reportedly being worked on.

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

Three emerging limiting factors were identified, climate change, invasive species, and spills of fuel or chemicals. The potential effects of all of these limiting factors were clearly presented. Specific strategies to mediate their potential effects were not presented, however. Instead, it is hoped that restoring natural functions, for example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity in the riparian zone, eliminating passage barriers, and decommissioning roads will lessen the potential impacts of these factors. Another potential source of limiting factors, the failure to purchase private forest lands in the upper Lochsa was not specifically mentioned as an emerging issue. Some discussion should be directed to what steps the project may take if private forest lands cannot be purchased and instead are logged or developed. Impacts from these activities could compromise many of the downstream actions being proposed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has 13 deliverablesand includes a number of important items, not often included in other proposals including the treatment of dispersed recreation sites, an outreach and education component and a program for conservation easement and land acquisition. However, mostof these are not described in quantitative terms apparently due to the fact that many projects are waiting the completion of various assessments or have not been fully-identified and designed. Explanations for why the work needs to be accomplished are provided, and in some cases, a general description of methods is also given. Elsewhere in the proposal specific goals, for example the number and location of planned culvert replacements, are provided. None of the actual work goals that would fall under a deliverable are mentioned making it difficult to determine how work will actually proceed over the course of the project. This type of detail should be included in the deliverables. Additionally, one deliverable covers project management. The activities described in deliverables 2, 5, and 7 should be combined into this deliverable as all of them appear to deal with project management topics.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There has been a wide variety of past implementation and effectiveness monitoring. There are good examples of how this has provided findings that have had direct relevance in improving current project location, design, and effectiveness. It is mentioned that habitat status and trend information has been useful in this regard and is being provided by the PIBO monitoring program. Unfortunately, there is no discussion of the future status of this monitoring as the program begins using CHAMP.

There is recognition of new programmatic monitoring (AEM, CHAMP and ISEMP) and reported development of a watershed restoration monitoring plan to detail future integration into the ongoing program. This plan is to be delivered in the next 6-8 months, but there is no discussion as to its current status. This is mentioned in Programmatic Comments and review of this plan by ISRP would likely be beneficial.

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

This is a well-written proposal that reflects current science and the application of landscape scale/whole watershed restoration. The ISRP's qualifications listed below can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in future reviews.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 9:38:20 AM.

The sponsors have provided an adequate response to ISRP concerns. They provide a clearer justification for road improvements or decommissioning, culvert removal, and weed control in terms of their risks to stream and riparian habitat and fish. The impact of trails on habitat and fish appears much less certain. The proposal is deemed Fundable in Part for road decommissioning, culvert removal, and weed control. Because the risks of erosion from trails do not appear to be well established, the ISRP recommends that this part of the proposal not be funded.

Qualification: The sponsors should develop a credible weed control program. The ISRP is concerned that the weed control program could consist primarily of herbicide spraying.

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.

This proposal is for road decommissioning and culvert removal in a context of declining fish numbers. The data on results, taken from sources outside the project, are the sort of material that ISRP expected to see in the original proposal narrative.

The response addressed the issues raised by the ISRP in their preliminary review of this project. At issue remains the need to develop an acceptable biological monitoring effort in this project. The nature of the habitat rehabilitation is arguably difficult to adapt to a treatment and control approach and a fish response, given that this work deals primarily with road deactivation, culvert improvement, and some riparian work. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to selection of stream and tributary sections that might act as treatment and control areas.

The ISRP recognizes that some assistance may be required to establish this type of investigation, and this may not be an ideal area for such research. However, given that this area is also part of intensive supplementation studies, and that parr monitoring occurs within the related project 199107300, some attempt at development of a monitoring and assessment framework seems possible. Funding should be contingent on making this attempt. The response included some data on steelhead and Chinook redds, and juvenile densities, which served to indicate that with further analysis and comparison (e.g., estimates of parr density/spawner), a monitoring program is possible, and one that is much needed for the basin.

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.

This comprehensive proposal clearly takes into account past ISRP advice. The proposal is clearly written and is very thorough, except for needing to complete the biological components. The proposal was a pleasure to review. The proposal contains clear multiple objectives to restore watershed functions and processes, matched to subbasin plan objectives with high priorities (tabulated), etc. Relationship to other projects is not given in as much detail as might be expected. There could be overlap among these several Clearwater projects. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, but how they all fit together should be better explained.)

Monitoring is factored into the objectives, except that the biological M&E is missing. A biologist is needed on the team. The project history is adequate for the short time project has existed (as a 2002 designation). However, it is stated in the facilities and equipment section that "This project has been on-going since 1996 with the cooperation of the Clearwater National Forest." If so, greater explanation of physical and biological results should appear in the history section.

For full ISRP comments on "protect and restore" 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.