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

 

The proposal describes a well-organized and long term watershed scale restoration program that integrates upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments. It is a very successful partnership between Nez Perce tribe (NPT), the U.S. Forest Service, Potlatch Corp, and others. Work accomplished over the past 15 years, by the project, makes it a regionally important program. Additional detail and supporting information would provide the reader with better insights into the setting for the project. A location map and information on factors such as geology, ownership, legacies of historical land use would be useful.

 

A solid conceptual and technical background is provided, and there is a generally clear explanation and use of a variety of plans and assessments to drive selection of restoration work. It remains a little unclear on how projects were identified and prioritized in the first 10-15 years. Also, the proposal states that additional assessments for fish passage and road condition are needed. This seems a bit odd given that the project has been underway for over 15 years. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful.

The proposal also notes that an MOA is being developed that will commit the U.S. Forest Service to provide at least 20% of the project cost presumably to qualify to receive BPA funding. This does not appear to be a requirement for any other state or federal agencies involved in the program and would be useful to find out the rationale given that a large share of the accessible habitat in this area is on NFS lands.

Five of the eight objectives provide a quantitative description of desired results however, there is no time element provided describing when the results are anticipated. Also, it is noted that a minimum level of increase in habitat productivity of 12-14% is needed in this watershed. There is no estimate or discussion of how the proposed work contributes toward reaching that increase or how much additional treatment is needed after the current round of funding (2014-18).

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

This project has a long list of project accomplishments that appear well linked to analysis of watershed, key processes, and habitat conditions. It has a long history and demonstrates a large amount of varied implementation and effectiveness monitoring that has been conducted. There are a number of results discussed that are based on the monitoring including: stream temperature reductions, reductions in substrate embeddedness and sediment source areas (roads), and an increase in habitat accessible to adult and juvenile salmonids.

There is a good discussion of how evaluation of results has led to changes/improvements in a variety of treatments including fish passage, road decommissioning and improvement, and riparian planting. An adaptive management approach of “assess, design, implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust, and repeat” is being used. To help evaluate biological responses to restoration work the project will use data collected by the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, IDFG, and BLM who are performing on the ground monitoring in the basin. Photos of completed actions were helpful, but dates taken should be indicated. It is not possible, however, to tell if the project is meeting expectations.

There is acknowledgement of previous ISRP comments regarding development of a more robust adaptive management approach, and it is stated that the NPT is in the process of developing a more formal plan that will be completed by December 2014. Some questions regarding project monitoring include:

1) The current discussion of fish data is not clearly described, but it is good to see data included. A better description is needed of the intent and protocols for snorkeling surveys that are conducted on an annual basis to assess population abundance, species composition, and age distribution. All values are based on presence/absence observations and are not necessarily reflective of true population estimates.

2) There are no clear indications of success from efforts to reduce sedimentation, although there is perhaps a minor positive change to water temperature. It is suggested that a treatment versus reference site comparison is needed.

Evaluation of Results

This project appears to be well thought out and coordinated, technically sound, and able to identify a number of possible, ecological results tied to major limiting factors. The project partnership has made good use of multiple funding sources and technical skills and resources from the primary partners. It remains a little less clear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this.

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

Climate change and invasive species were identified as emerging limiting factors. There is an excellent discussion regarding climate change, its likely effects to this watershed, and actions that have and will be taken in response. This discussion could serve as a model for other proposals as they examine implications of climate change. The sponsors are planning for possible effects by designing culvert and fish passage project for 100 year flood events and feel floodplain reconnections, riparian plantings, and other actions will help dampen the effects of warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Additional information and discussion on climate change effects to upland vegetation and future forest health and fire risk would have been useful. Also, some discussion of future development on private and industrial forest land and potential effects on this effort would have added to the discussion. Brook trout are identified as an invasive species that could negatively interact with native salmonids. No strategies are suggested for how this species should be managed in the future to reduce its potential impacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a list of 10 deliverables that include reasonable stated methods and metrics. Actions are listed that will be used to accomplish each deliverable and specific planned projects are mentioned. A couple of exceptions include riparian planting where only the number of plants to be planted is provided rather than riparian/floodplain area or length and a section on assessments which includes fish passage and road condition, each with no description of numbers or geographic area to be assessed. Given the large amount of work that has already occurred, it would have be useful to include a better discussion of why future assessments were needed, where they are to occur, when they will be completed, and how they will be integrated in to the ongoing list of project work.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This includes a very good discussion about past monitoring and the use of results to inform the direction of the program. Five RM&E protocols are listed. Four of them plus their associated methods were developed by Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board. There is also a very complete discussion which addresses integration of ISEMP, CHAMP, and AEM in the future. It is unclear how PIBO monitoring, which has been ongoing for a number of years, will be coordinated or integrated into future CHAMP monitoring and whether the several years of data will be used. It appears that not doing this would be a waste of a significant long term data set and a missed coordination opportunity.

Status and details regarding the "to be completed" NPT Monitoring plan. These comments are contained in the discussion of programmatic comments

It is unclear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this. There are fish passage and road condition assessments that have to be completed and prioritized into the broader program of work. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful. A more complete documentation of plans for this work would be useful and perhaps a review of completed documents accomplished in the future (1-2 years).

The sponsors need to provide a more serious discussion of past restoration project results and provide more details regarding anticipated benefits to fish and wildlife resources in a plan for future work.

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

 

The proposal describes a well-organized and long term watershed scale restoration program that integrates upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments. It is a very successful partnership between Nez Perce tribe (NPT), the U.S. Forest Service, Potlatch Corp, and others. Work accomplished over the past 15 years, by the project, makes it a regionally important program. Additional detail and supporting information would provide the reader with better insights into the setting for the project. A location map and information on factors such as geology, ownership, legacies of historical land use would be useful.

 

A solid conceptual and technical background is provided, and there is a generally clear explanation and use of a variety of plans and assessments to drive selection of restoration work. It remains a little unclear on how projects were identified and prioritized in the first 10-15 years. Also, the proposal states that additional assessments for fish passage and road condition are needed. This seems a bit odd given that the project has been underway for over 15 years. There is a reference to protocols to be used, but a better explanation of why these are needed, how long they will take, and how the information will be used would be useful.

The proposal also notes that an MOA is being developed that will commit the U.S. Forest Service to provide at least 20% of the project cost presumably to qualify to receive BPA funding. This does not appear to be a requirement for any other state or federal agencies involved in the program and would be useful to find out the rationale given that a large share of the accessible habitat in this area is on NFS lands.

Five of the eight objectives provide a quantitative description of desired results however, there is no time element provided describing when the results are anticipated. Also, it is noted that a minimum level of increase in habitat productivity of 12-14% is needed in this watershed. There is no estimate or discussion of how the proposed work contributes toward reaching that increase or how much additional treatment is needed after the current round of funding (2014-18).

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

This project has a long list of project accomplishments that appear well linked to analysis of watershed, key processes, and habitat conditions. It has a long history and demonstrates a large amount of varied implementation and effectiveness monitoring that has been conducted. There are a number of results discussed that are based on the monitoring including: stream temperature reductions, reductions in substrate embeddedness and sediment source areas (roads), and an increase in habitat accessible to adult and juvenile salmonids.

There is a good discussion of how evaluation of results has led to changes/improvements in a variety of treatments including fish passage, road decommissioning and improvement, and riparian planting. An adaptive management approach of “assess, design, implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust, and repeat” is being used. To help evaluate biological responses to restoration work the project will use data collected by the Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest, IDFG, and BLM who are performing on the ground monitoring in the basin. Photos of completed actions were helpful, but dates taken should be indicated. It is not possible, however, to tell if the project is meeting expectations.

There is acknowledgement of previous ISRP comments regarding development of a more robust adaptive management approach, and it is stated that the NPT is in the process of developing a more formal plan that will be completed by December 2014. Some questions regarding project monitoring include:

1) The current discussion of fish data is not clearly described, but it is good to see data included. A better description is needed of the intent and protocols for snorkeling surveys that are conducted on an annual basis to assess population abundance, species composition, and age distribution. All values are based on presence/absence observations and are not necessarily reflective of true population estimates.

2) There are no clear indications of success from efforts to reduce sedimentation, although there is perhaps a minor positive change to water temperature. It is suggested that a treatment versus reference site comparison is needed.

Evaluation of Results

This project appears to be well thought out and coordinated, technically sound, and able to identify a number of possible, ecological results tied to major limiting factors. The project partnership has made good use of multiple funding sources and technical skills and resources from the primary partners. It remains a little less clear whether there has been a comprehensive review of treatments and results and a strategy for the identification and prioritization of future work needed to achieve the stated 12-14% increase in habitat productivity. Given its long history, it would be interesting to see an estimate of what is needed to accomplish this.

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

Climate change and invasive species were identified as emerging limiting factors. There is an excellent discussion regarding climate change, its likely effects to this watershed, and actions that have and will be taken in response. This discussion could serve as a model for other proposals as they examine implications of climate change. The sponsors are planning for possible effects by designing culvert and fish passage project for 100 year flood events and feel floodplain reconnections, riparian plantings, and other actions will help dampen the effects of warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Additional information and discussion on climate change effects to upland vegetation and future forest health and fire risk would have been useful. Also, some discussion of future development on private and industrial forest land and potential effects on this effort would have added to the discussion. Brook trout are identified as an invasive species that could negatively interact with native salmonids. No strategies are suggested for how this species should be managed in the future to reduce its potential impacts.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a list of 10 deliverables that include reasonable stated methods and metrics. Actions are listed that will be used to accomplish each deliverable and specific planned projects are mentioned. A couple of exceptions include riparian planting where only the number of plants to be planted is provided rather than riparian/floodplain area or length and a section on assessments which includes fish passage and road condition, each with no description of numbers or geographic area to be assessed. Given the large amount of work that has already occurred, it would have be useful to include a better discussion of why future assessments were needed, where they are to occur, when they will be completed, and how they will be integrated in to the ongoing list of project work.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This includes a very good discussion about past monitoring and the use of results to inform the direction of the program. Five RM&E protocols are listed. Four of them plus their associated methods were developed by Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board. There is also a very complete discussion which addresses integration of ISEMP, CHAMP, and AEM in the future. It is unclear how PIBO monitoring, which has been ongoing for a number of years, will be coordinated or integrated into future CHAMP monitoring and whether the several years of data will be used. It appears that not doing this would be a waste of a significant long term data set and a missed coordination opportunity.

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:49:42 AM.