FY07-09 proposal 199001800

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Sanpoil

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: If the results of the nutrient enhancement project are positive we would like to expand the operations to include the Upper Columbia Sub-basin that would allow for increased productivity in Lake Roosevelt.

Termination date: none
Comments: Nutirent enhancement and monitoring will be ongoing until salmon have been returned to the blocked areas in sufficient numbers to supply the nutrient base necessary for the ecosystem to function.

Final deliverables: Annual reports will be submitted as deliverable each year. Additional deliverables may include but are not limited to trapping reports, genetic reports, and habitat data.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: All elements of the proposal are in need of such revision that a response is not warranted. The Panel repeats the comment from the previous review that "it is essential that project staff secure the services of a senior level scientist with expertise in data acquisition and interpretation." The reporting of results continues to be inadequate, and there is no evidence of benefits to fish populations. Fifteen years of results are briefly mentioned without supporting information or data synthesis. Some are positive (discovery of "extensive" redband distribution, stocking of only triploid rainbow trout, use of QHA in prioritization, but results of that effort are never identified). Some are inconclusive (results of monitoring years of instream habitat "improvement" efforts were "inconclusive"). And at least one will probably prove negative (creation of a new channel through braided section of Bridge Creek). Presentation of that data analysis (summary tables and graphs) is needed. The "objectives" and methods provided are, word for word, identical to the Colville Confederated Tribe's Lake Rufus Woods proposal 200727000. For consistency, pertinent reviewers’ comments for 200727000 are appended: "Superficially, the components of the project purport to benefit fish resources, but in reality this appears to be data gathering only justified by a desire to accumulate data, and there is little compelling evidence that fish would benefit. Most of the proposal is an extraction from the Subbasin Plan without developing it further. There are no objectives discussed, no critical needs or biological bottlenecks described, and little logic presented. The proposal gives inadequate justification that this data gathering activity would benefit fish resources. The narrative is not properly organized. It is confusingly written in other respects, as well. Various required topics are not covered. This seems to be a project designed to carry out various procedures of fish population and habitat survey, but the underlying purposes (objectives) are not explained. Methods should follow from objectives. Statistical design of sampling and analysis procedures is largely missing."

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The response and revised proposal gave a more readable and detailed account of project results and anticipated activities. Reviewers continue to maintain a position (as detailed in ISRP preliminary comments) that past results are below a standard of adequacy in terms of quality and quantity of efforts to benefit fish when compared with similar projects throughout the basin. Substantial progress is needed during the 07-09 funding cycle. The addition of a subcontract for statistical advising is positive, but only if the (unidentified) subcontractor has appropriate qualifications and practical experience in problem solving. Input from a fluvial geomorphologist would significantly aid project design and implementation. Reviewers share with project staff an appreciation of the challenges involved in assessing the abundance of adfluvial salmonids. It is important that a set of standardized metrics (for example, trapping during some specified portion of the hydrograph excluding peak flows, coupled with electrofishing or snorkeling at summer base flow) be developed that, taken together, satisfactorily assess changes in fish numbers from year to year. Those metrics can be further compared with fish data from EMAP trend monitoring from the set of reference stream reaches, and with hydrograph and temperature "real time" monitoring to help put physical conditions for that year in perspective, relative to habitat and fish population changes. Reviewers also share with project staff the awareness that environmental conditions in interior streams are changing, with the heightened peaks in spring flow followed by drought seen in project streams likely continuing. This makes sampling more difficult and puts additional pressure on restoration activities because marginal-quality habitat actions that might have been somewhat beneficial to fish two decades ago now are useless.