FY07-09 proposal 200714900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Pend Oreille

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: Continued O&M of strobe light. Scale down lake trout netting efforts to maintenance with gill nets.

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: There are two distinct components of this proposal: lake trout posing a threat to bull trout in Priest and Upper Priest Lakes, and brook trout posing a threat to cutthroat trout in tributaries. A similar project was previously proposed by IDFG and reviewed by the ISRP. The brook - cutthroat trout portion (Objective 2) is fundable. This stream work (Lower Graham Creek barrier reconstruction and Cee Cee Ah Creek antimycin treatment) seems justified, and both activities have a reasonable chance for success. Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the controversy regarding proposed use of fish toxicants is a major issue and can only be successful if community members are involved from the onset. These work elements are supportable but need better M&E description. Reviewers note that the program for eliminating or reducing exotic fishes in these situations is appropriately accompanied by methods to prevent them from reinvading. On other hand the proposed actions (all of Objective 1) intended to impact lake trout are not fundable. There is not convincing evidence put forth that either the deepwater trap netting in Upper Priest Lake, or the employment of a strobe light in the Thorofare to deter lake trout reinvasion of Upper Priest Lake, have a reasonable chance for success (and for the effort to benefit bull trout, both those activities would need to be successful). Reviewers wonder if it is not likely that bull trout in the lake are already beyond recovery. Removal goals for lake trout harvest by netting and an appraisal of whether they would be achievable and adequate for bull trout recovery were not addressed. The brief description of the pilot evaluation of a strobe light was not convincing - there was an absence of detail and little evidence of its efficacy for salmonids in a comparable situation. In the most recent review of the project (then sponsored by IDFG) the ISRP commented: "The key to success of this project as proposed will clearly be the placement and maintenance of a barrier to lake trout in the Thorofare. But the proposal would expend a lot of money for an undescribed system. There is a real leap of faith here, and a convincing case is not made that the mystery structure will be effective, largely because of the perceived need to build something that allows boat passage." Other than substituting the words "strobe light" for "mystery structure", these comments still stand.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: There are two distinct components of this proposal: lake trout posing a threat to bull trout in Priest and Upper Priest Lakes, and brook trout posing a threat to cutthroat trout in tributaries. The brook - cutthroat trout portion (Objective 2) is Fundable. This stream work (Lower Graham Creek barrier reconstruction and Cee Cee Ah Creek antimycin treatment) seems justified, and both activities have a reasonable chance for success. Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the controversy regarding proposed use of fish toxicants is a major issue and can only be successful if community members are involved from the onset. These work elements are supportable but need better M&E description. Reviewers note that the program for eliminating or reducing exotic fishes in these situations is appropriately accompanied by methods to prevent them from reinvading. On other hand, the proposed actions intended to benefit bull trout by suppressing lake trout (all of Objective 1) are Not Fundable. In the preliminary review, the ISRP wondered if it is not likely that bull trout in the lake are already beyond recovery. The response did not present factual evidence regarding that issue, instead indicating a certainty that "members of the Subbasin Work Team, OC, and Technical Coordination Group considered the adequacy and probability of lake trout netting for bull trout recovery prior to incorporating these action items into the Subbasin Plan." The response restated that the removal goal of this project would be to remove 90% of the lake trout from Upper Priest Lake, consistent with the Subbasin Plan. The ISRP notes the following regarding the status of bull trout in Upper Priest Lake, from the 2003 IDFG report by Liter and Maolie. The 1999 population estimate was 116 adults, with no juveniles being caught. In 2002, the fifth year of gillnetting to remove lake trout, the "situation appeared to worsen for bull trout" when 836 lake trout were netted and the ratio of lake trout to bull trout in the nets was 93:1. In the absence of more recent evidence to the contrary from the project sponsors, coupled with reviewers' experience with the dynamics of lake trout predation, the ISRP must take the position that, while the activities proposed are in good faith and lake trout assuredly pose a serious problem, the actions are being proposed 20 years too late to benefit bull trout. In the original proposal there was not convincing evidence put forth that either the deepwater trap netting in Upper Priest Lake, or the employment of a strobe light in the Thorofare to deter lake trout reinvasion of Upper Priest Lake, had a reasonable chance for success (and for the effort to benefit bull trout, both those activities would need to be successful). The response provided more detail on the strobe light system proposed as a deterrent to lake trout movement and reviewers agree that trial applications could have merit but only if they were part of program with a reasonable chance of benefit to bull trout. There was no additional information put forth in the response regarding details of the proposed deepwater trap netting in Upper Priest Lake or an appraisal of whether goals would be achievable and adequate for bull trout recovery.