FY07-09 proposal 199005500

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater

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: similar to that projected for FY07-09

Termination date: unknown
Comments: Population status montioring of steelhead populations in Idaho is expected to continue as long as the species is listed under ESA.

Final deliverables: Juvenile and adult population abundance status and trends. SAR from index streams. Stream temperature database Steelhead genetics database Productivity metrics from index populations

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This project seems to be oriented to routine monitoring. The proposal is not framed strongly in terms of the real objectives of the project for better understanding and consequently better management of steelhead. The response needs to include more detailed reporting of the results or describe immediate plans to synthesize the results. Although the tasks for monitoring are appropriate, the response should also provide greater detail of how the tasks are tied to overall biological objectives. The response should include greater coverage and summary of the published literature. Doing this would help the sponsors to look at this in a broader, more meaningful context. Sponsors state on page 2 of the proposal narrative: "Age structure of steelhead smolts should be considered in recovery planning as it could explain productivity differences among streams. A stream with older smolts most likely will produce less smolts per female due to the increase in natural mortality from an "extra" year of freshwater rearing before smoltification occurs." This is not unexpected. Smolts per spawner as a comparative metric among streams is only relevant if subsequent survival is the same for the different smolt ages. It could be that some streams will produce more adults by a life-history strategy of older aged smolts, even with fewer of them, than if they produced younger aged smolts that experienced higher marine mortality. There was a summary of the tasks completed including a short summary of a lack of response from supplementation in the Salmon River upstream from Sawtooth Hatchery and in Red River. The project history shows that data have been generated on various attributes of Idaho steelhead but there is little explanation of why the work was done and how it was (or will be) used to benefit fish. It would improve the proposal if management changes were identified that emerged from the data that were collected. If the project has settled into an automatic routine of gathering the same data at the same sites then perhaps it is time to either identify a focus or discontinue. The response should explain why the work was done and how it will be used to benefit fish. There are clearly defined objectives, but their utility and priority are questionable. In response, please explain how the tasks are tied to assessing natural production bottlenecks or evaluating important hypotheses. A more in-depth consideration of the potential to measure more than HWE, Fst, rxy,and assignment tests should be added and considered. Pritchard et al. 2000 is cited. It may be possible to assess the number of subpopulations in a watershed, the interbreeding of the subpopulations, and effective numbers of breeders, etc., using the genetic data. It may also be a useful method to estimate the effective size of the breeding population. The sponsors should include in response how this type of analyses might facilitate their work. The response should provide greater detail regarding INPMEP and probabilistic site selection. Also, please clarify the statement that this project (ISMEP) will complete snorkel surveys at a finer scale with greater precision than INPMEP. The proposal repeatedly mentions the value of publishing results, but after 15 years nothing has been completed. The information has been useful for establishing the status of steelhead, but the primary product has been "gray" literature. The response should describe progress in developing journal publications to disseminate project results. There could potentially be adverse effect from traps and other activities in the streams, and this is not addressed. The information on other species could provide an ancillary benefit to management of those species (e.g., bull trout).

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The project sponsor’s response clarifies the objectives and value of the project and adequately addresses the ISRP's comments from the preliminary review. The role the data collections and monitoring effort contributing to steelhead management was thoroughly presented. The ISRP query about smolt age and smolts/spawner as metrics of production was clarified with examples of data collected by the project. In response to the ISRP question regarding management actions taken as an example of the project, sponsors identify that steelhead supplementation was discontinued because of the project data. The ISRP recommends to the sponsors that they continue to identify uses for the data in developing management actions for steelhead, not just for the viability assessments of this species. Sponsors identify that genetic analyses will involve analyses beyond Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, Fst, and assignment tests, and will include evaluation of straying, effective population size, and estimation of ESA-recovery unit adult run size at Lower Granite Dam. The ISRP appreciates the clarification of differences in the approaches of Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Program and Idaho Steelhead Monitoring and Evaluation Studies. Finally, while the ISRP acknowledges that annual abundance estimates are not typically published in peer reviewed journals, we believe that when placed in a management context the data that is being produced by this project would be of high quality. For example, contrasting effective population size estimates with census population sizes is unreported for most species, and would be publishable. Reporting of results in the proposal is good, but the ISRP encourages the sponsors to further explore opportunities to publish information produced by the project as further evidence of its value. These remaining ISRP concerns with this project should be addressed in subsequent ISRP reviews. In addition, it may be time to conduct a more in-depth review of monitoring in Idaho. It is not clear who collects data how, when, and where in Idaho and how this collection feeds into NOAA TRT analyses, etc.