200709300 - Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division

Budgets: FY07: $308,484 | FY08: $379,436 | FY09: $372,786

Short description: Restore Middle Fork drainages to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed restoration projects such as culvert replacement, road inventory and road obliteration.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable

Comment:

A specific response was not provided for this proposal, rather only a response to the ISRP's group review. Consequently, the ISRP specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not justified. The tribe ranked this in its second tier compared to other "protect and restore" projects. For full ISRP 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 loop, 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? This is a duplicate of 200709200 for a group of small basins on the north slope of the Clearwater. It proposes to identify culvert, road sediment, and grazing impacts on local streams, after which actions will be implemented. The problem of habitat degradation in the Middle Fork is discussed in general terms, but not whether restoration will take place in the tributaries and/or mainstem. Very little is said about habitat conditions and the amount of available, or potentially available habitat in the tributaries targeted for projects. The sponsors state that resident fish occur in the tributaries but they do not identify the species or provide abundance estimates. The sponsors do not indicate whether the streams where passage will be restored historically supported anadromous fish. One specific culvert is identified for replacement. Is the habitat above the barrier suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Potential risk of exotic fish should be assessed for barrier removals. For sediment control, how large a problem is sediment and how much habitat is affected? The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. Without more specific baseline information and objectives, M&E cannot adequately be explained or evaluated. Overall, there is insufficient detail for scientific assessment. The need for restoration is insufficiently justified. Objectives are very general and not directly related to work elements. The methods and monitoring program are not clearly described and referenced. The sponsors should develop a reasonable basis for and project the quantitative benefits expected.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable when money available

Review group: Snake

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: NPT Tier 2 - 3