FY07-09 proposal 199004400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Coeur d'Alene

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: There are no identified operation and maintenance costs associated with this project.

Termination date: undetermined
Comments: We have not identified a termination date for this project. Researchers have determined that population response of migratory salmonids to habitat restoration occurs on a timescale of decades. Our power analysis of a nine-year data set indicates that monitoring must continue through 2014 to detect a 4% change at a power of 80% and alpha level of 0.10. Current measured production is 2-4 times less than project performance standards that would allow for sustainable harvest in the target tributaries. This project mitigates for the loss of anadromous fisheries in the Intermountain Province through resident fish substitution and restoration activities will continue until the adfluvial fishery supports sustainable harvest. Alternatively, return of anadromous fisheries to Reservation lands would signify a termination for this project.

Final deliverables: The target goal is a mean production of 125 kg/hectare/year in mainstem and tributary habitats.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal and a related Three-Step Review submittal have undergone significant ISRP review over the past decade. Despite reviewer efforts to inform modification of the project, the results do not indicate a benefit to fish and wildlife. Indeed, the project has not adopted appropriate methods to enable assessment of success. To quote the last review: "A central concern of the ISRP (and the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act) is project accountability. The project has been ongoing for almost a decade (total expenditures of approx. $4 million), but the results reported do not show significant changes or demonstrate significant benefits. Therefore, benefits to fish and wildlife are only marginally justified. Adequate fish abundance data need to be collected and analyzed in order to show positive or decreasing trends." In the current proposal reviewers are provided exquisite detail on non-relevant metrics like the number of trout eggs per skein and water temperature by stream section, but nothing to show any benefit to cutthroat trout from this project. The project has two management goals and several elaborate research aspects. The management goals are improvement of habitat in some small streams for westslope cutthroat trout and removal of non-native brook trout from one of the streams. The research includes evaluating the effects of the management actions and measuring various fish population parameters so as to investigate differences among cutthroat trout life history types. In recent monitoring of habitat projects, treatment sites had much poorer physical values than control sites. Whether these are pre- or post-treatment values is not identified. The limited trout population data that are shown are whole-stream averages and not separated for treatment and control sites. The proposal briefly mentions that northern pike predation in the lake phase (and river phases) of cutthroat trout life histories is probably a major problem. If so, much of the management effort of this project is futile. The authors say "additional research will be needed to quantify predator production in the lake environment so that strategies for minimizing predation effects can be developed and tested as necessary." And they refer to the Avista Corporation item in the proposal's section on relationships to other projects, but that item contains no mention of predation. Brook trout removal attempts in 2004 and 2005 (and as proposed to continue) were spatially discontinuous and temporally gradual (annual removal). Such piecemeal removal - rather than a major, near-complete removal of the brook trout in the shortest time possible - has proved ineffective in numerous cases throughout the Intermountain Province and elsewhere. Such activity should be terminated. Also, there is no discussion of a barrier to prevent reinvasion by brook trout. Brook trout have also become well established in Alder Creek. Reviewers see no effort to integrate results from similar projects elsewhere regarding the issue of cutthroat trout population stabilization and restoration.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: Reviewers appreciate the focus, logic, and clarity provided by the response. That 15-page document showed evidence of a quality program with evidence of results, sound monitoring and a good potential for benefiting native resident fish. Upon reconsideration, although the original proposal had some deficiencies, the ISRP feels it should have given this a "response requested" in the initial review. In the current streamlined review process, with the absence of a site visit and verbal interactive presentations, it is more vital than ever that a proposal for an ongoing project adequately describe results and future plans. The original proposal for this project was extremely long (90+ pages), unfocused, and contained much semi-relevant material. When reviewers noted the absence of, for example, a description of how fish populations had changed over time, they reacted too critically. The trend and interannual abundance data provided in the response was nicely summarized and especially helpful. As significantly clarified in this new material, the broad-based, long-term aquatic monitoring appears appropriate. There is clear utility of the monitoring to provide information for, for example, the land acquisition project 200204500 that apparently got much of its updated habitat and fish information from this project. Reviewers appreciate the new discussion of the ongoing brook trout removal program and agree with sponsors that both the no-action and the fish toxicant alternatives are not preferred. Reviewers did not favor the approach that seemed to be advocated in the original proposal of "piecemeal" electrofishing continued over a number of years. That method usually removes juveniles and gives survivors ample time to compensate, leading to no gain in suppression. However, as described in the response, the actual plan is for annual, single-pass electroshocking the entire upper Benewah Creek watershed just prior to brook trout spawning to target adult brook trout. Reviewers react more favorably to that approach provided that a substantial fraction (much more than half) of adults is removed each time to preclude a rapid brook trout rebound. The data provided in the response does not identify what fraction of the population of brook trout adults is removed annually. Reviewers are skeptical and note that the most recent recommendation from Montana researchers calls for at least six removal treatments of two to three electrofishing passes per treatment within two to three years, and for trampling brook trout redds. The ISRP would not view the possible outcome that such annual single-pass removal might be effective, but be needed to be continued indefinitely, as constituting "success." Reviewers suggest that by the conclusion of the 07-09 funding cycle the ability/inability of sponsors’ protocol to suppress brook trout should be apparent.