< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200207000 - Lapwai Cr Anadromous Habitat

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)

Budgets: FY07: $485,610 | FY08: $483,672 | FY09: $453,104

Short description: This project restores, protects and enhances steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in the Lapwai Creek Watershed. Information is collected to fill data gaps and BMPs are installed on agricultural and forestlands to achieve biological objectives.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $260,000 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: ISRP fundable in part:  funding in FY 07 for completion of inventory and assessments.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part

Comment:

The ISRP was provided a response to the fix-it loop for proposal 199901700 Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed (NPT) and 200207000 Lapwai Creek Anadromous Habitat (NPSWCD) – integrated sister projects to address habitat restoration and protection on Lapwai Creek on tribal and private land. The sponsors addressed the questions raised by the ISRP in the preliminary review. The adequacy of the answers to inform and assist the ISRP in their proposal evaluation varied. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for the time and effort in producing the revised proposal narrative and explanations of the projects’ history. The sponsors indicated that stream habitat and watershed inventories, and a compilation on fish population abundance will be completed soon; final assessments shall be available in 2007. Based on that commitment, these projects are Fundable in Part (incrementally). In 2007, the fundable work includes completion of the inventory and assessments. Following that, work possibly fundable in 2008 and 2009 might be for restoration actions, contingent upon a written plan that uses those assessments to establish biological objectives, strategies and actions, and an approach to measure whether progress is being made in achieving the objectives. The reporting of results was limited to a reporting of tasks accomplished, i.e., compliance monitoring. When they are developing their prescriptions they should include an evaluation of the biological results of their past actions. What is needed is a specific goal, with a timeframe for changes in habitat conditions and fish population abundance and productivity. Sponsors clarify for the ISRP their understanding of compliance and effectiveness monitoring, and inform the ISRP that they appreciate the necessity of effectiveness monitoring, but state that it is beyond the willingness of Council and BPA to fund those data collections and analysis. The ISRP understands the constraints placed on sponsors, but also believes sponsors need to be creative in developing methods to determine whether their restoration efforts are providing a benefit. Can riparian habitat be evaluated by photo points or aerial photography and be cost effective? How can stream flow and stream temperature be monitored to determine if treatments were effective? How can adult fish in and smolts out be measured? An evaluation plan is expected. An integrated process of watershed assessment remains incomplete after several years, but they can be credited with developing conservation plans and completion of several small actions. The revised narrative for the proposed work was a much better presentation than the original, and may have been acceptable if originally submitted in this manner. It also outlined the acceptable qualifications of the proponents. This work in Lapwai Creek is supportable because of the potential for anadromous fish production. The answers to the questions and the narrative revision go a long way to clarifying for the ISRP the status and progress of anadromous fish species (primarily steelhead) and restoration potential in this watershed. The ISRP had many questions for the sponsors, so the detailed evaluation of the response to each is beyond the space and time available in this fix it loop review.

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: State Tier 2