Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-395-00 - Protect and Restore Lochsa Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-395-00 - Protect and Restore Lochsa Watershed

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

Project Number:
2007-395-00
Title:
Protect and Restore Lochsa Watershed
Summary:
This project is a part of the Clearwater National Forest-Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Restoration Partnership, and represents a merger of two ongoing projects and one new project in adjacent drainage areas. The ongoing projects merged are Project #1996-077-03 Protect and Restore Waw'aatamnime to ‘Imnaamatnoon Analysis Area, and Project #2002-074-00 Protect and Restore Crooked Fork to Colt Killed Creeks Analysis Area. The new project that will be rolled into these two ongoing projects is Project #2007-255-00 Protect and Restore the Middle Lochsa Watershed. Beginning in FY 2007, project #2007-395-00 Protect and Restore the Upper Lochsa will incorporate all three project watersheds which will greatly increase administrative and financial efficiency in order to maximize the direct benefit to fish and wildlife.

Restoration follows a ridge top to ridge top approach with implementation focused on increasing aquatic habitat connectivity, decreasing resource impacts from roads, and exotic invasive plant control. The cost share on this project has been contributed by two other sources: the Clearwater National Forest and Idaho Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds. The Clearwater National Forest provides an approximate 30% match including cash and in-kind. In addition, the Nez Perce Tribe applied for and received two Idaho-Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund grants for 2005-2007 which provided $633,000 for implementation of road removal and culvert replacement. Our project planning, project costs, and implementation responsibilities are shared with the Clearwater National Forest.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Crappie, Black
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Other Resident
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
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 *
FY2017 (Previous) $1,398,894 $1,398,894 $1,296,022 $1,450,951 $1,469,736

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,398,894 $1,296,022 $1,450,951 $1,469,736
FY2018 (Current) $1,391,674 $1,391,674 $1,391,674 $1,391,674 $765,059

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,391,674 $1,391,674 $1,391,674 $765,059
FY2019 (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-Jun-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $1,398,894 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,391,674 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2018
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
2017 (Draft)
2016 $214,663 13 %
2015 $80,350 6 %
2014 $200,811 13 %
2013 $94,860 6 %
2012 $138,706 10 %
2011 $300,673 18 %
2010
2009 $355,300 21 %
2008 $172,556 22 %
2007 $95,350 14 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
74017 REL 21 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-395-00 EXP PROTECT & RESTORE UPPER LOCHSA Issued $1,391,674 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:56
On time:15
Avg Days Late:29

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
32869 37499, 42646, 55332, 63419, 67015, 71057, 75023, 74017 REL 21 2007 395 00 EXP NPT UPPER LOCHSA WATERSHED RESTORATION Nez Perce Tribe 05/2007 05/2007 Issued 46 187 0 0 5 192 97.40% 5
33031 37151 2007 395 00 EXP USFS UPPER LOCHSA WATERSHED RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2007 05/2007 Closed 9 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
Project Totals 75 263 0 0 28 291 90.38% 5


Historical from: 1996-077-03
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
4505 23606, 27779 199607703 PROTECT & RESTORE THE BEAR TO FISHING CREEK WATERSHEDS Nez Perce Tribe 01/2001 01/2001 History 9 33 0 0 4 37 89.19% 0
Project Totals 75 263 0 0 28 291 90.38% 5


Historical from: 2002-074-00
Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
11900 20732, 25362, 30308 2002-74 CROOKED FORK CREEK TO COLT KILLED ANALYSIS AREA Nez Perce Tribe 09/2002 09/2002 History 11 33 0 0 19 52 63.46% 0
Project Totals 75 263 0 0 28 291 90.38% 5


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-395-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-395-00 - Protect and Restore Lochsa Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-395-00
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:

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.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
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.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
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.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
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.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
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.
Qualification #5 - Qualification #5
Consideration should be given to having the ISRP review the watershed restoration monitoring plan that will be completed within a year.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-395-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-395-00 - Protect and Restore Lochsa Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-395-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #3 in contracting. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews.
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #3 in contracting.
Council Condition #4 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #4—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).
Council Condition #5 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #5—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews.
Council Condition #6 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-074-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-074-00
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: Road decommissioning and culverts; appears to be mostly on Clearwater NF; confirm that BPA-FS MOU covers this, and the can be a "1"; otherwise, it would be 2.2 if can confirm that screening or other criteria in place to ensure that specific activities not already required of another entity.
Assessment Number: 1996-077-03-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1996-077-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Road decommissioning, culvert removal, erosion control; assume it occurs on National Forest lands and is covered by BPA-FS MOU.
Assessment Number: 2007-255-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-255-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Culvert replacement, road decomiss on FS lands; assume covered by BPA-FS MOU?

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-395-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-395-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2002-074-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-074-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 1996-077-03-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1996-077-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2007-255-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-255-00
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: 2002-074-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-074-00 - Restore Crooked Fork Creek
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 1996-077-03-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1996-077-03 - Restore Fishing To Bear Creek
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2007-255-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-255-00 - Protect & Restore Middle Lochsa
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 (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-074-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-074-00 - Restore Crooked Fork Creek
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Proposed implementation included road removal, culvert replacement, revegetation and necessary weed treatment, and road improvement. All types of proposed work can be implemented but with reduced targets for each year. The Nez Perce Tribe, Clearwater National Forest, and the private landowner will have to meet to prioritze which suite of implementation projects can be completed in a given contract year.
Assessment Number: 1996-077-03-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1996-077-03 - Restore Fishing To Bear Creek
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:
Assessment Number: 2007-255-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-255-00 - Protect & Restore Middle Lochsa
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2002-074-00 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: All work & budgets from projects 1996-077-03, 2002-074-00 and 2007-255-00. This new combined effort will follow the ISRPs recommendations of integrated weed control and management.

This project Merged From 1996-077-03 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: All work & budgets from projects 1996-077-03, 2002-074-00 and 2007-255-00. This new combined effort will follow the ISRPs recommendations of integrated weed control and management.

This project Merged From 2007-255-00 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: All work & budgets from projects 1996-077-03, 2002-074-00 and 2007-255-00. This new combined effort will follow the ISRPs recommendations of integrated weed control and management.


Name Role Organization
Anne Connor Technical Contact US Forest Service (USFS)
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Justin Peterson Technical Contact Nez Perce Tribe
David Kaplowe Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Emmit Taylor, Jr. Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
David Forestieri Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Rob Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration