FY07-09 proposal 199701900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Middle Snake / Malheur

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:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal includes some evidence of progress since the provincial reviews. The sponsors have submitted one manuscript on previous work, and the project effort is being re-directed with more focus redband trout than on bull trout. This is responsive to the ISRP previous comment that they move on. However, in sum, the proposal does not give a clear indication of a strong consistent program making significant progress. The basic objectives of protecting and restoring native fish and their habitat are clear and appropriate; however, the project seems to be progressing very slowly. Much of the proposed work is still involved in setting work plans. The proposal does not provide complete enough information to evaluate the benefit to fish and wildlife. Similarly, the proposal reports results of previous work that focus on preparing annual reports rather than increased scientific information leading to actions to benefit native fish. There is little indication of results to date and little or nothing on limiting factors. No specific information is given on fish populations and habitat and their change over time as a result of project actions. A response should indicate how the information obtained in the past has been used and how it has influenced the direction of the current proposed work. A response should also address how each of the objectives and their associated work elements will be used. Justification for the number of sites to be sampled and the number of fish used in the genetic work should be provided. Some probabilistic sampling is proposed; however, more details about the proposed plan for a developing monitoring and evaluation plan are necessary. Specifically, what will be monitored, what type of evaluation is proposed, and what adaptive management strategies may result? How will the results of the project be shared? Plans for information transfer should be specified beyond preparation of an expensive annual report. Project assessments should be linked to the IDFG Native Snake River Salmonid Assessment - 199800200.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The proposal included some evidence of progress since the provincial reviews that was reinforced by material provided in the response. The response indicated to reviewers that the project is making progress toward the goal of understanding the needs of Malheur native salmonids to enable protection and restoration of their habitat. The sponsors have submitted one manuscript on previous work, and the project effort is being re-directed with more focus on redband trout than on bull trout. Reviewers empathize over the slow growth of woody riparian vegetation at study sites after livestock grazing has been eliminated. This might be the time to reconsider whether willows, which have shown similar "stunting" elsewhere when harsh winter conditions apparently lead to desiccation if not snow-covered, are the best species. Other components of the project such as bull trout redd counting and the 180-site (one-fifth then to be re-sampled annually over 5 years) sampling effort to assess salmonid status throughout the subbasin, seem generally appropriate and adequately designed from the brief summaries provided in the response. Biological Objective #4, to gather habitat data on 30 sites, will only yield valuable results if it is done in combination with fish assessment and if it is set up to test which possible limiting factor (based on a very short list compiled from the literature and other BPT studies) is actually regulating the population at each site. For the redband trout genetic work, it is not clear the proposed number of sites to be sampled and the number of fish to be used are sufficient for detecting meaningful differences/trends. This should be established before on-the-ground implementation takes place. Reviewers repeat the suggestion that interaction, if not already occurring, with personnel of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Native Snake River Salmonid Assessment project 199800200 should be of value to sponsors of this project.