199405000 - Salmon River Habitat Enhancement
Sponsor: Shoshone Bannock Tribes
Budgets: FY07: $408,911 | FY08: $425,702 | FY09: $393,311
Short description: Continue to monitor and evaluate previous habitat enhancement efforts and the effects of mine impacts. Complete preliminary data collection and feasibility studies on two new locations for habitat enhancements in the Upper Salmon River Subbasin.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $231,380 | FY08: $231,380 | FY09: $231,380
Comment: ISRP fundable in part. Remove habitat restoration work, and Bear Valley Creek monitoring and evaluation (per ISRP recommendation)
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part
This proposal is actually two proposals in one cover that would be better separated into different proposals. The ISRP recommends that only the monitoring component of this proposal is fundable, with the exception of that in Bear Valley Creek. The sponsors are strongly acknowledged for past monitoring and its contribution to new proposed projects, even if they are not justified as submitted. These proposed projects on Slate and Smiley Creeks address diffuse sediment/flow problems that are difficult to attack and probably of medium priority. Fine sediment in both creeks is high but no convincing evidence is given in the proposal or response that stabilizing two reaches of bank is the best approach. The justification cites the Subbasin Plan and the Sawtooth National Forest Plan. In fact, both mention a need to reduce sediment input, but the latter especially identifies grazing management as the most needed change. Reviewers recommend passive restoration over any “hard” approaches. The proposed projects in Slate and Smiley Creeks are not fundable. Project sponsors have submitted a reasonable argument for continuing the monitoring effort, but the Bear Valley Creek monitoring has run its course, and is no longer justified. It is stated that the Bear Valley experience will provide guidance for similar projects elsewhere. The argument that higher fish densities are associated with low fines must also acknowledge that low densities also occurred at low fines. Overall results are inconclusive, and it appears that project impacts have stabilized and there is no new information about project impacts to be gained from further monitoring here. In the case of the other monitoring, the relatively long run of data would, at first glance, suggest that perhaps they have monitored long enough, but explaining the influences of events such as floods and changes in land and water use justify continuing this monitoring well into the future. There is reason now to monitor actual focal species as well as proxies, even though out-of-basin effects persist. Adaptive management is not directly addressed, but should be. One case is noted in which data collection was discontinued when not useful, but use of monitoring data to improve projects is not explicit. Reporting to Streamnet and intent to publish in open literature is evident. Substantially improved communication and collaboration with other projects is apparent. The narrative demonstrates close integration with projects, past, present and upcoming, under various sponsorships, not just BPA, and at varied scale. They should investigate linking up with the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) project #200301700 that is doing work in the Upper Salmon.
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.
Review group: Snake
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0