< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200710400 - Protect & Restore White Bird Creek

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Dept. Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division

Budgets: FY07: $246,804 | FY08: $215,897 | FY09: $285,294

Short description: Restore and protect the White Bird Watershed for the benefit of both resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest.

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:

This was a generic proposal. Reviewers responded with a number of detailed questions and suggestions summarized as: 1. Sponsors should provide justification in terms of benefits to fish. 2. A convincing case that conditions in the stream have caused decline in focal species in the basin is needed. 3. Sponsors should provide convincing evidence that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. 4. Sponsors should describe and cite past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. 5. The response should provide discussion of the risk that barrier removal might permit access to exotic species. 6. Objectives are to build culverts and decommission roads. Rather, sponsors should develop objectives to increase fish populations by some reasonable and defensible amount. 7. Efforts to restore the hydrograph and regain access to the floodplain should be high priority. 8. Where vegetation will be "treated," an IPM approach is needed. 9. Monitoring plans seem to be perfunctory. The plan seems to be to monitor tasks, rather than resource conditions. Develop a rigorous M&E plan to outline the details of their sampling and assessment methods. 10. Data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level is missing. Information and education program are not information transfer in a scientific sense. In addition to the generic response that was the sole response to many of the Tribe’s original proposals, there was a specific response to the review of this proposal. Both the original proposal and response sketched a generic "shotgun" approach that in its current form with lack of detail and specificity seems to offer very limited potential to benefit the steelhead and spring chinook that use the stream, and is not fundable. Future submission as a survey/plan project as has been done with the Slate Creek revision is recommended. 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.

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 - 2