text: Proposal 200103300: Hangman Restoration Project
  July 14, 2006 Finalized Gerald Green
  Hangman Restoration Project
  This project will manage approximately 1,200 acres in the Upper Hangman Watershed for wildlife HU crediting against Albeni Falls Dam and protect additional native trout habitats through purchase of concervation easements, leases and possibly fee title.
  Technical information will be shared with other Fish and Wildlife Managers through annual reports, HEP reports, property assessment reports, monitoring and evaluation reports and publications in professional journals. Monitoring and evaluation data will conform to Albeni Falls M&E protocols and will contribute to ongoing mitigation efforts for Albeni Falls Dam. Technical information obtained from the project will also be incorporated in adaptive management procedures adopted by tribal and agency managers involved with Albeni Falls mitigation. Information generatied through this project will also be shared with the public and professional peers at appropriate opportunities.
  Gerald Green Coeur d'Alene Tribe 850 "A" Street P.O. Box 408
  Plummer ID 83851 Ph: 208.686.0312
  Fax: 208.686.3021
  Email: ggreen@cdatribe-nsn.gov Form Submitter
  Cameron Heusser Coeur d'Alene Tribe 850 A Street, PO Box 408
  Plummer, ID 83851 Ph: 208-686-5521
  Fax: 208-686-3021
  Email: cheusser@cdatribe-nsn.gov Supervisor
  47 degrees, 84 minutes N. 116 degrees, 52 minutes W Hangman Creek Southeast portion of the Spokane Subbasin and southern portion of the Coeur d'Alene Reservation in Northern Idaho. Benewah County, Spokane Yes
  Black-capped Chickadee, Yellow Warbler, White-tailed Deer, Muskrat, Mallard, Bald Eagle, Canada Goose
  2005 Completed acquisition of 1,200 acres of priority habitat. Completed field HEPs, flora and faunal inventories and initiated hydrologic evaluations of the 1,200 acres. Re-structured the EPA Wetlands Grant to allow a graduate student as lead investigator.
  2004 Completed all pre-acquisition activities on targeted properties. Continued SNTEMP and PHABSIM modeling. Was awarded a EPA Wetlands Grant submitted to assist with hydrologic modeling of Upper Hangman. Completed initial preparations for USFWS TWG.
  2003 The 2nd iteration of the Habitat Prioritization Plan included areas upstream of the Cd'A Reservation. Completed draft M&E Plan. Initiated IFIM. Began negotiations with landowners of target properties and completed most pre-acquisition activities.
  2002 Initial investigations into the conditions of the Upper Hangman Watershed culminating in a Habitat Prioritization Plan that identified appropriate areas to focus acquisition efforts.
  BPA 199004400 Implement Fisheries Enhancement on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation within the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin 19904400 strives to restore a westslope cutthroat trout fishery on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation and in the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin. 199004400 monitors fish populations and habitats and has completed extensive habitat restoration activities on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, however, it lacks a means of providing long term protection for fish habitats as does 200103200.
  BPA 199004401 Lake Creek Land Acquisition and Enhancement 199004401 was the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's first attempt at acquiring management rights to protect both fish and wildlife on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation. Initially, 199004400 stalled when the owner of the single highest priority property in the Lake Creek Watershed refused to sell at market value. In the 2001 Rolling Provincial Review, the NPCC recommended 199004401 be rolled into the Coeur d'Alene Fish Habitat Acquisition Project. Implementation of 199004401 was again stalled as crediting issues prevented implementation of 200204500. In this Provincial Review 199004401 is being resubmitted as a stand alone project that can address both fish and wildlife issues in the Lake Creek Watershed through habitat acquisitions.
  BPA 199206100 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project is a cooperative, multi-agency wildlife mitigation project developed and coordinated through the Albeni Falls Interagency Workgroup. Implementation efforts are focused at providing in-kind mitigation for habitat types impacted through the construction and inundation of Albeni Falls Dam. Target habitats identified for protection, restoration, and enhancement efforts include riparian corridors, wetlands, floodplains and scrub-shrub habitats. The Johnson Property in central Benewah Valley was purchased as HU crediting for construction and inundation losses attributed to Albeni Falls Dam. The purchase of this property has enabled the Coeur d'Alene Tribe to conduct restoration activities on 3 mile of Benewah Creek. Unfortunately, little opportunity exits to use the Albeni Falls Mitigation Project to protect resident fish habitat because habitats best suited for Wildlife HU crediting generally do not overlap with resident fish needs in most of the stream reaches of the Coeur d'Alene Indain Reservation.
  BPA 200103200 Coeur D'Alene Fisheries Enhancement in the Hangman Watershed 200103200 strives to improve redband trout habitats in the streams of the Hangman Watershed, which is in the Spokane Subbasin. 200103200 has identified, monitored and improved habitats for native redband trout in the Upper Hangman Watershed, which is east of the Washington/Idaho State border. 200103200 lacks a habitat protection component and this Project (200103300) is intended to provide those habitat protection tools through purchase of conservation easements, long term leases or possibly fee title acquisitions.
  BPA 200204500 Coeur d'Alene Fish Habitat Acquisition 200204500 was proposed by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe in the 2001 Mountain Columbia Provincial Review to secure habitats for native fish and wildlife species within the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin. The Project was primarily intended to complement the ongoing Implement Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation (Project #199004400) by providing long term habitat protection through acquisition of fee title, conservation easements or long term leases. The lack of a crediting mechanism for acquisitions of fish habitats stalled implementation of 200204500 throughout the last Rolling Provincial Review cycle. In this Rolling Review cycle, 200204500 is being proposed as an ongoing project and will focus its efforts primarily on the purchase of conservation easements, which should circumvent the crediting issue.
  Other: Coeur d'Alene Tribe Education Dept. Summer Intern Program The Coeur d'Alene Tribe Education Department funds a summer internship program for high school students interested in natural resources management. The Fisheries Program supervises 3-5 of these interns each year and benefits by using them in tree planting and fence building projects, among other things. Several graduates of the internship program have continued working on restoration projects as seasonal technicians. It is expected that some of the upcoming new interns, as well as employees who started as interns, will work on aspects of projects associated with this proposal.
  Other: Coeur d'Alene Tribe IRMP Integrated Resource Management Plan In September of 2005, the Tribe completed a Integrated Resources Management Plan (IRMP) with funding assistance from the USEPA General Assistance Program, USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administration for Native Americans, and Department of Health and Human Services. The Tribe's Natural Resource Department took the lead on the project, with participation coming from all Tribal programs and departments. Goals of the project are to create a common vision for the future use and sustainability of Tribal natural, environmental and cultural resources; provide clear goals and objectives to reach the Tribe's common vision; and coordinate the management of tribal natural, environmental and cultural resources. Direct benefit will come to this project through adoption of standards and guidelines for the protection of fish and wildlife resources, and through identification and remediation of conflicting management practices. The IRMP is the first Tribal management plan that will encompass all natural resources and environmental elements on the Reservation.
  Other: EPA Special Project TMDL Development EPA provides funding to the Coeur d'Alene Tribe to monitor surface water quality of streams, conduct watershed assessments, and provide the frame work for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development on the Reservation under section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring is conducted at 25 sites within the Reservation including 19 sites within the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin. Data is compiled and used to supplement the analysis of fish and macroinvertebrate abundance and distribution on the Reservation. Data on temperature, discharge and turbidity, in particular, are important in evaluating restoration project effectiveness and coupled with landscape analysis and GIS modeling, provide the necessary information to formulate watershed assessments. Data currently gathered from the sites in the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin will be used in the research, planning, design and monitoring phases of all Coeur d'Alene Fish and Wildlife Proposals. The TMDL plan for Lake Creek was completed in October of 2005, The TMDLs are scheduled for Hangman, Benewah and Alder Creeks are scheduled for completion in 2006.
  Other: EPA Wetlands Grant Wetlands Program Grant Hydrologic processes, the distribution and disruption of those processes, are the central mechanisms that define the distribution of fish and wildlife habitats in the Upper Hangman Watershed. A prioritization plan for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's BPA projects in the Hangman Watershed was written based on landscape and fish distribution parameters however hydrologic processes were not addressed in that plan. The main product of this EPA Wetlands Program Grant will be to define landscape segments and management actions that are key to determining the flashy characteristics of the Hangman Watershed. Identifying the sources of and ameliorating the flashy characteristics of the Hangman Watershed will lead to a more stable, functional watershed and presumably expand fish and wildlife habitats.
  A: Monitor and Evaluate Mitigation Efforts Using the Albeni Falls Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as a template, monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and restoration efforts on 1,200 acres of recently acquired mitigation lands in the Upper Hangman Watershed. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a; Terrestrial Strategy 1A11 a; Aquatic Strategy 2A3 a; Aquatic Strategy 2B1 c. 26-13, 14, & 29
  B: Maintain HUs on Acquired Mitigation Properties Maintain the minimum HUs established by HEP procedures and minimum crediting guarantees (minimum of 364 HUs as determined through HU letters signed by Albeni Fall Work Group). Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a 26-29
  C: Reestablish Floodplain/Wetland Habitats By September 2009, alter at least 280 acres of agricultural lands along Hangman & Sheep Creeks to promote wetland development by disrupting drain tiles, filling drainage ditches, and altering stream bed elevations and/or terrace elevations to allow high waters to disperse across flood plains. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a; Aquatic Strategy 2A2 c; Aquatic Strategy 2A3 a - c, Aquatic Strategy 2B1 c. 26-13, 14, & 29
  D: Begin Restoration of Agricultural Lands Plant a minimum average of 100 acres per year of former agricultural lands within acquired mitigation properties with native vegetation. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a; Aquatic Strategy 2B1 c. 26-14 & 29
  E: Stabilize Entrenched Stream Channels Stabilize a minimum average of 1 mile per year of entrenched stream channel within recently purchased mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a; Aquatic Strategy 2A2 c; Aquatic Strategy 2A3 a-c; and Aquatic Strategy 2B1 c. 26-13, 14 & 29
  F: Establish Deciduous Forest & Shrub Communities By September 2009, establish plantings that will develop into wetland forest and scrub/shrub communities along 3 miles of active and abandoned stream channels within mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watersged Watershed. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Strategy 1A10 a; Aquatic Strategy 2A2 c; Aquatic Strategy 2A3 a-c; and Aquatic Strategy 2B1 c; UCUT Albeni Falls Measures 1 & 2, 26-29, UCUT 1
  G: Protect Native Trout Habitat Acquire management rights to riparian zones, wetlands, stream courses and adjacent non riparian habitats to protect, and restore and enhance as needed, at least 3 miles of priority native trout habitat per year. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Aquatic Strategy 2A3 a-c; Aquatic Strategy 2B1 a. 26-13 & 14
  H: Partner With Existing Conservation Programs Partner with existing Federal, State or Private Conservation Programs to lease riparian zones, wetlands, stream courses and other streamside habitats to protect, and restore and enhance where needed, at least 0.5 miles of potential trout habitats per year. Intermountain Spokane Subbasin Aquatic Strategy 2A3 d; Aquatic Strategy 2B1 b. 26-13 & 14
  01: Coordination Coordinate Activities with Project 200103200, Implement Fisheries Enhancement on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, Hangman Watershed. Coordinate all activities with Project # 200103200 to ensure the priority properties are properly identified, and management rights to priority native fish habitats are sought in the proper sequence to maximize benefits to both fish and wildlife. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $7,583
  A: Monitor and Evaluate Mitigation Efforts
  C: Reestablish Floodplain/Wetland Habitats
  D: Begin Restoration of Agricultural Lands
  E: Stabilize Entrenched Stream Channels
  F: Establish Deciduous Forest & Shrub Communities
  G: Protect Native Trout Habitat
  H: Partner With Existing Conservation Programs
  02: Produce Plan Produce Management Plan for Acquired Mitigation Properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed Produce a management plan to prioritize and implement restoration strategies and direct manage of the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 5/1/2007 $13,046
  B: Maintain HUs on Acquired Mitigation Properties
  03: Produce Plan Produce a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Acquired Mitigation Properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed Using the Albeni Falls Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as a template, produce a plan to monitor the effectiveness of management on the acquired mitigation properties in Hangman. 10/1/2006 6/1/2007 $13,046
  04: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect Data on Habitat Developement to Determine Effectiveness of Mitigation Activities Collect data to reflect th estatus and trends in habitat development on acquired mitigation properties. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $25,850
  Focal Area: Data specific to mitigation propeties
  05: Create/Manage/Maintain Database Centralize Mitigation Property Monitoring Data Establish data bases to store monitoring data, enable statistical analysis and share with regional management entities. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $11,529
  06: Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze and Interpret Data to Determine Effectiveness of Mitigation Efforts Quantitatively define the effects of management through statistical evaluation of management efforts. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $11,529
  Focal Area: Data specific to mitigation properties
  07: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Make Data on Mitigation Properties Available to BPA and Regional Managers Data gathered from assessments and inventories of mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed will be shared with BPA and regional managers for review and incorperation into regional data bases. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $11,529
  08: Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Produce Report on Monitoring and Evaluation of Mitigation Activities Produce a report summarizing the data gathered and analysed to quantify the effects of management and restoration efforts. 1/1/2009 9/30/2009 $12,318
  09: Produce Inventory or Assessment Determine Immediate Threats to Integrity of Acquired Properties Survey properties to identify imminent and possible threats to habitats of target mitigation species (Albeni Falls Target Species) 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $18,249
  10: Practice No-till and Conservation Tillage Systems Initiate Conservation Tillage Practices on Mitigation Lands That Are Not Selected for Immediate Restoration Efforts Establish no-till and conservation tillage systems on at least 200 acres of agricultural lands to minimize effects of erosion and retain moisture availability through the growing season. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $3,262
  * # of acres treated: minimum of 200 acres by September 2008
  11: Maintain Vegetation Treat Noxious Weeds to Limit Their Effects on Native Habitats Repeat chemical treatment of 56 acres of forest habitat to further reduce the presence of noxious weeds within this native habitat. 4/15/2007 6/20/2009 $8,829
  12: Remove vegetation Thin Ponderosa Pine Overstory to Approximate Historic Open Woodland Tree Densities Thin the mature ponderosa pine stand on approximately 50 acres of forested habitats within the mitigation properties of the Upper Hangman Watershed to historic open woodland densities. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $6,619
  * # of acres treated: 50 acres by September 2009
  13: Plant Vegetation Plant native deciduous shrub and tree species along narrow linier wetlands formed from abandoned stream channels. Plant native deciduous shrub and tree species according to management plan prescriptions along a minimum of 0.5 miles of abandoned stream channels within the open woodland habitats on the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $13,334
  * # of riparian miles treated: minimum of 0.5 miles
  14: Produce Design and/or Specifications Specify Stable Channel Morphology for Sheep and Hangman Creeks Produce designs to specify stable channel morphologies for Sheep and Hangman Creeks within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2007 $77,971
  15: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Realign the Sheep Creek Stream Channel Realign the Sheep Creek Channel within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman mitigation properties to stabilize the stream. 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 $400,830
  * # of stream miles before treatment: 0.7 miles by September 2009
  16: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Stabilize the Hangman Creek Channel by working within its Current Configuration. Improve the channel morphology of Hangman Creek within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed by adding natural materials to direct water flow and/or sloping the channel banks. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $400,830
  * # of stream miles treated: 2 miles by September 30, 2009
  17: Produce Design and/or Specifications Produce Design for Wetlands to be Established in Agricultural Fields Design wetlands and wetland support structures for the flood plains along Sheep and Hangman Creek within the mitigation properties that currently produce agricultural crops. 10/1/2006 9/30/2007 $26,100
  18: Plant Vegetation Plant Stream Banks with Native Vegetation Plant native shrub, tree, grass and forb species along a minimum of 2.5 miles of banks along the active stream channels within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $152,549
  * # of riparian miles treated: minimum of 2.5 miles of stream bank
  19: Plant Vegetation Plant Agricultural Lands to Native Vegetation Plant a minimum average of 100 acres per year of agricultural lands within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed to wetland and non-wetland native vegetation as directed by the management plan for the properties. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $51,295
  * # of acres of planted: minimum average of 100 acres per year
  20: Maintain Vegetation Maintain Native Vegetation on Mitigation Properties Maintain established and planted vegetation communities within the mitigation properties in the Upper Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $22,042
  21: Produce Plan Update the Hangman Restoration Project's Habitat Prioritization Plan Update the Hangman Prioritization Plan with the most recent data and findings to refine and/or reshape the priority areas for native trout restoration. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $14,411
  22: Identify and Select Projects Select Properties for Conservation Easement Purchases Select properties from among the pool of available properties where conservation easements will provide greatest protection to native fish populations 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $21,010
  23: Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities Complete Conservation Easement Pre-Acquisition Activities Complete all pre-acquisition activities in preparation for the acquisition of conservation easements to protect native trout habitats in the Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $162,773
  24: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Complete NEPA Checklists Complete NEPA checklists to ensure each easement acquisition conforms to all federal standards for acquisitions. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $18,356
  25: Land Purchase Purchase Conservation Easements to Protect Priority Native Trout Habitats Complete the purchase of management rights on lands encompassing and supporting priority native trout habitats in the Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $2,600,000
  * # of riparian miles protected: average minimum of 3 miles protected per year
  26: Produce Inventory or Assessment Produce Inventory and Assessment of Lands Under Conservation Easement Protection Produce and inventory and assessment on which to base a management plan for lands protected with conservation easements to protect native trout habitats 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $27,533
  27: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Provide Data on Properties with Conservation Easements to Protect Native Trout Habitats to BPA and Regional Managers Provide BPA and regional mangers with data on habitat conditions on properties where conservation easements are purchased to protect and/or restore native trout habitats to facilitate regional analysis and summaries. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $21,192
  28: Produce Plan Produce Management Plans for Conservation Easements Produce Plans to Manage Activities on Properties with Conservation Easements 4/1/2007 9/30/2009 $26,320
  29: Lease Land Partner with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to Lease Lands for Native Trout Habitat Enhancement Protect and enhance native trout habitats by enrolling lands in the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Improvement Program and other like programs to improve native fish habitats in the Hangman Watershed. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $97,042
  30: Coordination Pursue Regional Partnerships to Implement Conservation Practices in Hangman Creek Pursue partnerships as opportunities arise. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $24,424
  31: Manage and Administer Projects Complete and Report on Efforts to Complete All Work Elements Ensure completion of all FY2007-FY2009 Work Elements, Milestones and Reports 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $44,554
  32: Outreach and Education Inform Public, Particularly Local Residents, of Management Activities Involve local public in management plan development and implementation for mitigation properties. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $21,799
  * # of general public reached: 1,500/year through meetings & published articles
  * # of students reached: 25/year through educational events
  * # of teachers reached: 5/year through curriculum developmetn and events
  Personnel 1 FTE Project Manager $44,782 $47,008 $49,358
  Personnel 1FTE Acquisition Specialist $40,560 $42,588 $44,717
  Personnel 1FTE Technician $21,528 $22,589 $23,712
  Personnel 0.25 Administration Assistant $8,580 $9,009 $9,459
  Fringe Benefits 40% $46,180 $48,478 $50,899
  Travel Regional Involvements $1,200 $1,200 $1,200
  Other 1 Project Vehicle $7,200 $7,560 $7,938
  Other Office Space Rental $6,802 $6,802 $6,802
  Other Communication and Postage $1,300 $1,300 $1,300
  Supplies misc. hardware items, weed control chemicals, etc. $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
  Other plantings for abandoned stream channels $3,000 $ 0 $ 0
  Other plantings for Hangman Bank stabiliazation $ 0 $15,000 $ 0
  Other plantings for agricultural lands restoration $ 0 $10,000 $ 0
  Other plantings for Sheep Creek re-alignment $ 0 $ 0 $60,000
  Other Office Supplies $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
  Other copy machine rental $3,900 $3,900 $3,900
  Other Heavy Equipment Rental (4 pieces of equipment, 4 weeks) $ 0 $ 0 $24,000
  Overhead Coeur d'Alene Tribal Indirects 31.47% $59,331 $82,116 $93,556
  Other Channel Stabilization Designs $60,000 $ 0 $ 0
  Other Hangman Creek Channel Complexity Increases $ 0 $300,000 $ 0
  Other Sheep Creek Re-alignment $ 0 $ 0 $300,000
  Other 2 appraisals/year @ $8,500 each $17,000 $17,000 $17,000
  Other Cultural Resource Surveys 2/year @ $5,000/year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
  Other Conservation Easement Lands Assessments $ 0 $10,000 $10,000
  Other Conservation Easement Acquisitions $1,000,000 $820,000 $780,000
  Other NRCS Lease Compliance $ 0 $42,000 $10,500
  Other Wetland/Floodplain Designs $25,000 $ 0 $ 0
  $1,359,863 $1,500,050 $1,507,841
  $4,367,754
  Natural Resource Conservation Service Lease Payments and Compliance Costshare $ 0 $42,000 $42,000 Cash Under Development
  $ 0 $42,000 $42,000
  $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Costs beyond FY09 will decline as initial restoration on mitigation properties will be completed
  No definit date Project will terminate when a viable redband trout fishery is re-established in the Hangman Watershed.
  Expense -No resident fish crediting to meet requirements
  $566,407 FY 2008 NPCC Rec
  $699,403 FY 2009 NPCC Rec
  $706,271 Total NPCC Rec
  NPCC Comments: ISRP fund in part (qualified): fund elements of project except stream channel realignment as per ISRP comment. Budget will have to be adjusted to match funded work elements. Submit conservation easement through the water entity program.
  NPCC Staff Comments: ISRP fund in part (qualified): fund elements of project except stream channel realignment as per ISRP comment. May need to align budget accordingly. Programmatic habitat m&e issue.
  Local or MSRT Comments: Budget reduced by $787,843 in FY07, $872,882 in FY08, $886,702 in FY09. If, and when, additional funds are available this project's budget will be made whole to include an additional average $165,225 per year in FY07, FY08 and FY09. The project sponsors
  Comments: Funding is scientifically justified for land acquisition, conservation easement, riparian management, and M&E only. The qualification is that M&E methods need to be expanded to include fish (even before trout return to the project area, if they do).
  This long, disorganized proposal contained much irrelevant material and was exceedingly hard to review. The project might work out in the long term, but the proposal did not give confidence that the effort is being soundly conducted. The response retrieved the situation to some extent. The proposal did not present an adequate strategy for the project. The technical and scientific background was poorly organized and contained much information more suited to the project history. The project is a mix of land purchase and managements; the latter not clearly described. The problems to be dealt with are not clearly defined, and the purpose of the project was not stated until page 6.
  The "original" project goal (page 6) was: "Protect and/or restore riparian and priority upland habitats . . . to promote healthy, self-sustaining wildlife populations," the present project goal being left unstated. The proposal next says this will involve landscape-level management to complement a companion project (200103200) that deals with fish habitat in the same system. However, the sponsors describe no habitat requirements for wildlife species, allude to little about the area as wildlife habitat, and apparently name wildlife species only once ("monitoring . . . will include parameters on land birds, waterfowl, bald eagles, small mammals, herpetofauna"). Instead, it delves more into matters of fish and streams, including a section on "Native Fish Habitat Protection Work Elements," and even genetic make-up of redband trout. Thus, the project inexplicably changed to deal with both fish and terrestrial wildlife, and to deal with in-stream management, as well as upland and riparian matters. The sponsors do not adequately explain the relationship of this change to Project 200103200, which was to deal with aquatic matters.
  Significance to the subbasin plan was adequately shown in the proposal. The response's reporting of results was adequate, considering the short duration of the project.
  The proposal's section F, Biological Objectives, Work Elements and Methods, contains no outline of objectives but is a rambling, partly historical discussion involving various diffuse statements of objective with no clearly listed work elements, and with some intermixture of methods.
  The ISRP asked for response on the extent to which this project is expected to benefit fish and wildlife, asked how fish and wildlife would use the properties protected by the easements, and commented that the project history section described activities, not results or management implications. A response was needed describing these results and how they have been shown to benefit fish and wildlife. The detailed response augmented the original proposal and clarified the logic behind the effort. As a result, the acquisition and conservation easement portions of the proposal appear justified, although biologically there is some risk.
  The ISRP asked why no cogent information was provided to indicate that the proposed activities would benefit redband trout, which compose the fish population at issue. The response explained how obtaining easements and promoting riparian vegetation could help reestablish the habitat connectivity that the small, isolated redband populations need. It did not show that the fish need the proposed in-channel restructuring. The proposal mentioned "Enhancement opportunities" in Section F, but techniques to enhance stream channels for trout were not discussed in any useful detail. From the description of work elements, $400K would be used to realign 0.7 miles of Sheep Creek and $400K would be used to change the channel morphology of 2 miles of upper Hangman Creek. Passive restoration appeared not to have been considered in the proposal, and the response indicated judgment that a fully passive approach would not suffice, but that further physical analyses need to be done. The proposed channel work is not yet scientifically justified. Judging scientific soundness is not possible for the large ($600K) program to realign the Sheep Creek channel and change morphology in Hangman Creek. Given more information, such actions might be justified, but the proposal contains insufficient information on this subject to enable a review. If the sponsors undertake a proposal for stream habitat work in a future review cycle, it should draw significantly on the expertise of hydrologists and fluvial geomorphologists, working in conjunction with stream fish ecologists.
  A problem not covered in the proposal is the unfavorable and apparently ongoing pattern of climate and stream flow, in which high stream flow is occurring earlier in the year and is followed by months of extreme low flow during worsening annual droughts. This does not bode well for re-population by trout from higher elevations into re-created habitat lower in the valley, where the water is already excessively warm in summer. Promoting riparian vegetation could help overcome this problem (and would benefit many forms of wildlife, as well), but the proposed channel restructuring, as described, would not.
  The ISRP was critical in the past review of this project's lack of M&E, and M&E still was not adequately described in the 2007-2007 proposal either. The response presented detailed material on the M&E plan, which concentrates on terrestrial matters. No M&E elements concerning fish and fish habitat were evident, and this is a major deficiency in view of the project's trend in planned activity toward emphasis on fish habitat. The M&E's aquatic aspects could be improved by more specific linking with the other projects that cover the fish.
  Comments: A response is needed on two issues. The first is the extent to which this project is expected to benefit fish and wildlife and the second regards the monitoring and evaluation for the proposal.
  Regarding the first issue, how would fish and wildlife use the properties protected by the easements? The project history section describes activities, not results or management implications. A response should describe these results and how they have been shown to benefit fish and wildlife.
  "Enhancement opportunities" are mentioned in the section on objectives, work elements, and methods. Techniques to "enhance" stream channel for trout are not discussed in the narrative. From the description of work elements, $400K would be used to realign 0.7 miles of Sheep Creek and $400K would be used to change the channel morphology of 2 miles of upper Hangman watershed. Passive restoration appears not to be considered. Why? This seems to be an attempt to implement such activity without appropriate analysis and review. No cogent information is provided to indicate these activities would benefit redband trout. Please clarify.
  Regarding the second issue, the ISRP was critical in the past review of this project's lack of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and M&E still is not adequately described in this proposal either. A response should describe these procedures.
  Other reviewer comments (not requiring response): This project could eventually work out in the long term, but the proposal does not give confidence that the effort is being soundly implemented. The sponsors do not present an adequate strategy for the project.
  The section on technical and scientific background is not clearly organized. It contains much information that should be in the project history section instead. The project seems to be a mix of land purchase and land managements; the latter is not clearly described. The purpose of the project is not stated up front. The problem is not clearly defined.
  On pages 5 and 6, the purposes seem to be expressed in the "primary goal" of a previous version of the project as "Protect and/or restore stream habitats throughout the Hangman Watershed . . . to support the restoration or reintroduction of native fish populations that are reduced from their original abundance," and in a more recent (but previous) goal: "Protect and/or restore riparian and priority upland habitats within the Hangman Watershed . . . to promote healthy, self-sustaining wildlife populations." It is later stated (page 9) that the project "proposes to restore and protect habitats that will benefit both fish and wildlife populations, and is intended to complement the Objectives and efforts of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's Project that focuses more directly on fish populations and stream habitats in the Upper Hangman Watershed (#2001-032-00)."
  Significance to the subbasin plan is adequately shown.
  With respect to objectives, the goals are not explicit. They seem to be to manage the acquired property and to acquire "management rights" on other property (with $2.6 million). No objectives are stated in the narrative, so they are not really discussed there. They appear on the spreadsheet outline. Objective E, "Stabilize Entrenched Stream Channels," needs better description and justification. The idea of stabilization may be counterproductive with regard to fish habitat. The dynamic processes in streams form and reform habitat for fish. And halting or impeding the processes by artificially over stabilizing the system could (and often does) prevent much habitat from forming.
  No science is evident in the proposal's presentation of methods. The subject of work elements is mentioned repeatedly, but no work element is explicitly identified in the narrative except "Manage and Administer Projects" and "Outreach and Education," and none is discussed.