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

The Selway River is an attractive site for habitat restoration because private landownership is mainly in the lower 10% of the basin and the remaining 90% of the river is situated in the federally designated Selway Wilderness Area. Federal ownership should help ease the implementation of restoration actions. Also, the B-run steelhead of the Selway represents an important metapopulation in the Clearwater Basin as this population has never been supplemented with hatchery fish. The FCRPS Expert Panel Process for the Selway identified four limiting factors for the basin, and by far the most important was sedimentation which was given a weighting factor of 78%, followed by water temperature (10%), passage barriers (8%) and riparian vegetation (5%). The Nez Perce Tribe and Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest (U.S. Forest Service) have prioritized restoration actions in the Selway based on the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment, the Expert Panel Process and current watershed surveys. The overall goal of this proposal is to restore the Selway River watershed so the physical habitat of the basin no longer limits the recovery of ESA-listed steelhead. The project is important regionally because of its potential to restore the Selway River steelhead population to viable status.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status, and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments; however, it seems redundant to include this information under both Project Significance and Problem Statement. Note on page 4, ESU refers to “evolutionarily” not “ecologically” significant units.

The project has five objectives to: 1) increase anadromous fish abundance and productivity, 2) reduce sedimentation, 3) reduce fish passage barriers, 4) reduce the impact of roads and, 5) protect and restore riparian habitats. Objectives 2, 3, and 4 have success criteria that can be measured. No productivity or abundance goals were produced for Objective 1. Similarly, no success criteria were established for Objective 5 which deals with restoring riparian habitat.

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

Even though this project began recently, in August of 2011, a number of actions have been completed. Two culverts were replaced and opened approximately 9.5 miles of habitat. A road inventory using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package was started. This process was used on the O’Hara Creek Road and road segments contributing significant amounts of sediment were identified. Additionally four culvert surveys were completed in the Selway subbasin to identify which were likely to fail or block fish passage.

This proposal demonstrates that advice from the ISRP's review in 2006 has been taken seriously as the monitoring and adaptive management components of the proposal are much improved. However, the description of adaptive management refers to a “passive” approach. The ISAB (see ISAB 2011-4) and ISRP promote active adaptive management, consistent with the original definition of the term, in which experimentation is deliberate in order to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions. This approach places a value on knowledge to reduce uncertainty in the future as an outcome in itself, and requires formulation of alternative hypotheses and an experimental design to test those hypotheses.

The description of proposed monitoring under the Problem Statement and Monitoring (as DELV-5) is generally good. The main deficiency is that the proposal does not include provisions, or at least a description of such provisions, for measuring success in achieving Objective 1, increase anadromous fish productivity and production.

The proposal states that all the habitat actions will be monitored to determine if they meet expected goals. Results from this monitoring will be used to change or refine how restoration actions occur in the future. This approach was used to change how culverts are being replaced. The project is now using bottomless arch culverts or bridges as opposed to typical squash type culverts because the bottomless culverts are better able to pass flood waters and retain substrate. The Expert Panel Process also caused the project to key on populations in the Selway and on the factors that are limiting their abundance.

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

This is a collaborative project with personnel from the U.S. Forest Service’s Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest. The project complements a number of ongoing projects, including the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed programs, and the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Forest Restoration Act. The sponsors are also working with P. Roni and colleagues at NOAA Fisheries to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that will be used in the Selway and in other areas where the Tribe is conducting habitat restoration work.

Two emerging limiting factors are identified, climate change and invasive species. The possible effects of climate change are clearly stated. The sponsors are designing their restoration actions to account for impacts caused by climate. For example, culvert and bridge replacements are designed to accommodate 100-year flood events. Additionally it is hypothesized that riparian planting, improving stream complexity, reconnection of the floodplain, and improving fish passage will help dampen climate change effects.

Possible impacts caused by invasive plant and animal species were also identified as emerging limiting factors. In this case, a number of nonindigenous species of fish residing in the Selway River were identified. But no mention is made of how they might interact with native fish species and how such interactions might be addressed in the future. The possible consequences of invasive plants or weeds are described and some examples of the species of concern are given. Yet, no mention is made on how the effects of weeds might be dealt with in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 

Five of the six project deliverables, road decommissioning, fish passage, road improvements, inventory assessments, and project management are fairly well defined. For example, in the passage and road decommissioning and improvement deliverables specific future restoration actions are described. Inventories on culverts, bridges, and fords have taken place in the Selway subbasin. The deliverable for conducting inventories also presents future work, indicating that additional inventories on riparian and instream habitat condition, fish passage, and existing road network will occur. That being said some simple editing would improve the proposal as the aims of three of the deliverables change depending upon what portion of the proposal is examined. For instance in the proposal summary the deliverable for road decommission is 48 miles while in the Deliverable Section it equals 24 miles. Similar inconsistencies in the proposal summary and deliverables sections exist in the aims of the fish passage and road improvement deliverables. These conflicts need to be corrected. The deliverable that describes the monitoring efforts that are planned states that implementation and compliance as well as action effectiveness monitoring will take place. No mention, however, of status and trends monitoring is made. This type of monitoring should take place, and the sponsors need to indicate the methods that will be used to accomplish this activity. Additionally, even though the proposal has an objective to restore riparian habitat, none of its deliverables really address this need.

 

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

See the ISRP's programmatic comments on NPT RME program and BiOp gaps. They plan to have the status and trend monitoring plan done by summer 2014.

The ISRP specific qualifications on improving this proposal can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in the next review.

Success criteria for several of the project's objectives need to be developed plus several inconsistencies in deliverables (identified in section 4 below) need to be resolved.

Success criteria for achieving Objective 1, "increase anadromous fish productivity and production" need to be developed. Overall, results should be judged in terms of improvements to fish productivity and production.

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

The Selway River is an attractive site for habitat restoration because private landownership is mainly in the lower 10% of the basin and the remaining 90% of the river is situated in the federally designated Selway Wilderness Area. Federal ownership should help ease the implementation of restoration actions. Also, the B-run steelhead of the Selway represents an important metapopulation in the Clearwater Basin as this population has never been supplemented with hatchery fish. The FCRPS Expert Panel Process for the Selway identified four limiting factors for the basin, and by far the most important was sedimentation which was given a weighting factor of 78%, followed by water temperature (10%), passage barriers (8%) and riparian vegetation (5%). The Nez Perce Tribe and Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest (U.S. Forest Service) have prioritized restoration actions in the Selway based on the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, the Selway and Middle Fork Clearwater Rivers Subbasin Assessment, the Expert Panel Process and current watershed surveys. The overall goal of this proposal is to restore the Selway River watershed so the physical habitat of the basin no longer limits the recovery of ESA-listed steelhead. The project is important regionally because of its potential to restore the Selway River steelhead population to viable status.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status, and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments; however, it seems redundant to include this information under both Project Significance and Problem Statement. Note on page 4, ESU refers to “evolutionarily” not “ecologically” significant units.

The project has five objectives to: 1) increase anadromous fish abundance and productivity, 2) reduce sedimentation, 3) reduce fish passage barriers, 4) reduce the impact of roads and, 5) protect and restore riparian habitats. Objectives 2, 3, and 4 have success criteria that can be measured. No productivity or abundance goals were produced for Objective 1. Similarly, no success criteria were established for Objective 5 which deals with restoring riparian habitat.

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

Even though this project began recently, in August of 2011, a number of actions have been completed. Two culverts were replaced and opened approximately 9.5 miles of habitat. A road inventory using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package was started. This process was used on the O’Hara Creek Road and road segments contributing significant amounts of sediment were identified. Additionally four culvert surveys were completed in the Selway subbasin to identify which were likely to fail or block fish passage.

This proposal demonstrates that advice from the ISRP's review in 2006 has been taken seriously as the monitoring and adaptive management components of the proposal are much improved. However, the description of adaptive management refers to a “passive” approach. The ISAB (see ISAB 2011-4) and ISRP promote active adaptive management, consistent with the original definition of the term, in which experimentation is deliberate in order to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions. This approach places a value on knowledge to reduce uncertainty in the future as an outcome in itself, and requires formulation of alternative hypotheses and an experimental design to test those hypotheses.

The description of proposed monitoring under the Problem Statement and Monitoring (as DELV-5) is generally good. The main deficiency is that the proposal does not include provisions, or at least a description of such provisions, for measuring success in achieving Objective 1, increase anadromous fish productivity and production.

The proposal states that all the habitat actions will be monitored to determine if they meet expected goals. Results from this monitoring will be used to change or refine how restoration actions occur in the future. This approach was used to change how culverts are being replaced. The project is now using bottomless arch culverts or bridges as opposed to typical squash type culverts because the bottomless culverts are better able to pass flood waters and retain substrate. The Expert Panel Process also caused the project to key on populations in the Selway and on the factors that are limiting their abundance.

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

This is a collaborative project with personnel from the U.S. Forest Service’s Nez Perce Clearwater National Forest. The project complements a number of ongoing projects, including the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation, Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed programs, and the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Forest Restoration Act. The sponsors are also working with P. Roni and colleagues at NOAA Fisheries to develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that will be used in the Selway and in other areas where the Tribe is conducting habitat restoration work.

Two emerging limiting factors are identified, climate change and invasive species. The possible effects of climate change are clearly stated. The sponsors are designing their restoration actions to account for impacts caused by climate. For example, culvert and bridge replacements are designed to accommodate 100-year flood events. Additionally it is hypothesized that riparian planting, improving stream complexity, reconnection of the floodplain, and improving fish passage will help dampen climate change effects.

Possible impacts caused by invasive plant and animal species were also identified as emerging limiting factors. In this case, a number of nonindigenous species of fish residing in the Selway River were identified. But no mention is made of how they might interact with native fish species and how such interactions might be addressed in the future. The possible consequences of invasive plants or weeds are described and some examples of the species of concern are given. Yet, no mention is made on how the effects of weeds might be dealt with in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 

Five of the six project deliverables, road decommissioning, fish passage, road improvements, inventory assessments, and project management are fairly well defined. For example, in the passage and road decommissioning and improvement deliverables specific future restoration actions are described. Inventories on culverts, bridges, and fords have taken place in the Selway subbasin. The deliverable for conducting inventories also presents future work, indicating that additional inventories on riparian and instream habitat condition, fish passage, and existing road network will occur. That being said some simple editing would improve the proposal as the aims of three of the deliverables change depending upon what portion of the proposal is examined. For instance in the proposal summary the deliverable for road decommission is 48 miles while in the Deliverable Section it equals 24 miles. Similar inconsistencies in the proposal summary and deliverables sections exist in the aims of the fish passage and road improvement deliverables. These conflicts need to be corrected. The deliverable that describes the monitoring efforts that are planned states that implementation and compliance as well as action effectiveness monitoring will take place. No mention, however, of status and trends monitoring is made. This type of monitoring should take place, and the sponsors need to indicate the methods that will be used to accomplish this activity. Additionally, even though the proposal has an objective to restore riparian habitat, none of its deliverables really address this need.

 

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

See the ISRP's programmatic comments on NPT RME program and BiOp gaps. They plan to have the status and trend monitoring plan done by summer 2014.

The ISRP specific qualifications on improving this proposal can be addressed in contracting and evaluated in the next review.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:12:05 PM.

A specific response was not provided for this proposal rather only a response to the ISRP's group review. Consequently, the ISRP's specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not fully justified. The Tribe ranked this in the second tier of protect and restore projects. 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.



ISRP preliminary comments (June 2006): Response requested. The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles "protect" and "restore." Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit?



The Selway is important for sustaining and increasing populations of listed salmonids. IDFG has rated the Selway as having high potential for recovering steelhead. The proposal is consistent with the Biological Opinion, the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, and the USFWS draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, it includes collaboration with the Nez Perce NF and complements several BPA- and non-BPA funded projects. Much of the habitat in the watershed is in reasonably good condition, but some sections are degraded.



In areas where sediment control is proposed, how large of a problem is sedimentation in that area and how much habitat is being affected? Where barrier removal is proposed, is the habitat above the barriers suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Most objectives are only generally stated and methods are not clearly described and referenced so that scientific adequacy could be assessed. Frequently, the work elements bear little relationship to the objective. The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. A response is needed on the issues raised above.



The ISRP concludes that if a convincing case can be made for removal of the four problem culverts (e.g., will open large rearing area and will not permit access of exotics, specifically brook trout), a one-year project for their removal would be expected to provide some benefit.



The monitoring program was not well explained. M&E needs to have an assessment of brook trout distribution in the Selway.