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

This is a small program with a narrow scope, but the objective and methods are scientifically sound. There is a good description of regional significance for fish production and recovery of populations at risk. The sole objective is to reduce the number of artificially blocked streams so that zero barriers to anadromous fish exist within the watershed.

Fish species that will benefit from this project are Steelhead - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, spring/summer Chinook salmon - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, bull trout - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, Westslope cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout.

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

The project has followed a sound, logical course in its recent history. In 2007-2008, surveys were completed on culverts, bridges, and fords. A screening process was used to assess high and moderate problem culverts, bridges, and fords. This screening took into account stream gradient, slope position, soil types, and potential stream habitat. Survey data were entered into the Fish Xing program, and the culverts were prioritized for replacement. Information used in the prioritization exercise consisted of the following: potential habitat upstream miles, slope, stream gradient, fish species present, fish usage, and the rating from the Fish Xing program. To date, three of these crossings have been replaced by the NPT in cooperation with the NPCNF.

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

Adequately covered in the proposal

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This project proposal focuses on continuing the effort to replace the high and moderate priority fish passage barriers within the watershed. All crossings have been prioritized with up to three undergoing engineering survey and design in 2013. The sponsors will continue implementing one culvert replacement per field season. The prioritization document listed 16 crossings total to be replaced.

The use of the passage model was good, although sponsors are not directly assessing fish passage.

Provisions for implementation and compliance monitoring are built into the proposal. Action effectiveness monitoring is proposed and will be part of the NPT AEM plan in 2014. Details are to follow later in 2013, as for other Nez Perce Watershed proposals. At present there is no plan evident for status and trends monitoring. Please refer to programmatic concerns about the lack of explicit plans for status and trend monitoring.

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

This is a small program with a narrow scope, but the objective and methods are scientifically sound. There is a good description of regional significance for fish production and recovery of populations at risk. The sole objective is to reduce the number of artificially blocked streams so that zero barriers to anadromous fish exist within the watershed.

Fish species that will benefit from this project are Steelhead - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, spring/summer Chinook salmon - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, bull trout - ESA Threatened and Designated Critical Habitat, Westslope cutthroat trout, and rainbow trout.

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

The project has followed a sound, logical course in its recent history. In 2007-2008, surveys were completed on culverts, bridges, and fords. A screening process was used to assess high and moderate problem culverts, bridges, and fords. This screening took into account stream gradient, slope position, soil types, and potential stream habitat. Survey data were entered into the Fish Xing program, and the culverts were prioritized for replacement. Information used in the prioritization exercise consisted of the following: potential habitat upstream miles, slope, stream gradient, fish species present, fish usage, and the rating from the Fish Xing program. To date, three of these crossings have been replaced by the NPT in cooperation with the NPCNF.

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

Adequately covered in the proposal

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This project proposal focuses on continuing the effort to replace the high and moderate priority fish passage barriers within the watershed. All crossings have been prioritized with up to three undergoing engineering survey and design in 2013. The sponsors will continue implementing one culvert replacement per field season. The prioritization document listed 16 crossings total to be replaced.

The use of the passage model was good, although sponsors are not directly assessing fish passage.

Provisions for implementation and compliance monitoring are built into the proposal. Action effectiveness monitoring is proposed and will be part of the NPT AEM plan in 2014. Details are to follow later in 2013, as for other Nez Perce Watershed proposals. At present there is no plan evident for status and trends monitoring. Please refer to programmatic concerns about the lack of explicit plans for status and trend monitoring.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:22:25 AM.

The original proposal was a generic, broad-brush habitat improvement project including barrier removal, road decommissioning, hydrologic restructuring, vegetation management and other practices, none of which were sufficiently justified or described. The response trims the project scope to surveying road crossings and producing a prioritized list of barriers whose replacement provides the greatest chance for providing important benefits to native fish. The modified proposal described in the response is fundable at $80K per year, which represents partial funding of the original proposal. The proposed plan and survey should include fish distribution data including that of exotics, in recognition of the hazard of upstream invasion of exotic fish when barriers are removed.

When this survey and planning is completed, a separate implementation proposal can be developed based upon results. This could be the basis for significant collaboration with other landowners and interested parties to leverage investments and generate commitment to larger habitat protection and improvement goals.

The sponsors should be encouraged to include some criteria in their surveys for the amount and productivity (for desired species and based on historic use) of habitat that would become available to migrating fish with a successful project. The hypothesis guiding this work is that of access to productive habitat for the target species. The test of the hypothesis, and thus the science of the project, is whether or not the target species re-inhabits the area, so monitoring fish response to complete the test is needed.

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.