FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21020

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

FY 2002 O&M budget has allowed for the purchase of a backpack shocker to facilitate stream sampling and to use with the current shocker in larger systems, and in the case of failure of the old Model VII shocker.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This should be an important M&E project for hatcheries (e.g., Spokane Tribal Hatchery) that are stocking the reservation waters and for native populations in streams, but the proposal does not convince us that the project is being properly conducted. Much of the background material is helpful. The map was appreciated. The general rationale and relationship to other projects are good. The objectives are good, but the methods are weak (it is stated what would be done, but not how). There should be much value to fish from this project if it is reworked. It meets consistency criteria.

The scientific/technical background provides much detail on conditions of tributaries and creeks but doesn't lay out the central problem in a clear way. For how long have hatchery fish been stocked, and what is known about the effects? Given that healthy tributaries are needed, why do the researchers need to determine the limiting factors when they state (p.6) that limiting factors are levels of dissolved oxygen combined with temperatures? Later on that page it states that this project will produce carrying capacity objectives for each water body. This is different from identifying limiting factors.

The sampling design needs detail. If it hasn't yet been developed, then at least the likely literature sources for it should be shown. If the sampling methods and designs are not yet set, then how can facilities, equipment and staffing be thought adequate?

Data would be gathered upon which to manage four "lakes" that total 75 acres and apparently provide little angling. This appears to be a low-priority situation. Even if the priority is adequate to warrant keeping this as part of the project, we are not convinced that it is necessary to monitor all the physical and chemical characteristics of these lakes. The limiting factors seem to have already been identified as anoxia and high temperatures. The proposal mentions possible evaluation of measures to destratify the lakes. Such an engineering evaluation may be more to the point than further studies to refine details of the problem. The stated objectives are rather general and vague. The proposal states that it is designed to "monitor (fish) stocking of 4 interior lakes", yet there is no mention of conducting a creel survey either by this project or another one. The catch of stocked fish probably ought to be the first focus of a monitoring program. Estimates of carrying capacity in the lakes that are mentioned are unlikely to be useful if they are derived from the plan described.

One proposal objective is to monitor trout populations in the tributaries. Obviously, such populations and "assemblages" can be strongly affected by fishing. Again, where is the creel census and sampling design?

Also, tributaries to Lake Roosevelt will be sampled to secure 5 spawning populations of wild kokanee. This task has higher potential value for Lake Roosevelt fishery.

Before improvements in culverts or diversions (p. 9) are made to enable fish passage, the risks of damage to upstream native fish stocks by new stocks that move in should be considered.

On narrative p. 8, paragraph 2, "instream structures" are mentioned. What kind were they? What was their exact purpose? Similarly, in the next paragraph, reference to "habitat restoration and connectivity efforts" is vague.

P. 9, last paragraph: What does "direct and indirect habitat improvement" mean?

The intentions regarding information transfer are unclear. This project should result in reports containing analyses and interpretation, not just in the data base that is indicated on p. 2 of the proposal's part 1.

"Elecroshocking index sites" are mentioned (p. 9, paragraph 3). The type of electrofishing gear to be used may well be the backpack units mentioned later in the same paragraph for removing non-native fish. If so, this probably involves pulsed direct current, and its drawbacks in terms of high rates of fish injury and death should be acknowledged. The advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack units) should be considered. The Montana Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks has banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.

Question: When restoration of anadromous fish populations above Grand Coulee is mentioned, it is not clear that you really mean anadromous fish. The emphasis is on habitat improvement. Please clarify.

Comment:

T2-The time frame identified in Objective 3 is troublesome. Rewrite Objective 3 so that it has realistic accomplishments and time periods.

T3 -Rewrite Objective 3 so that it has realistic accomplishments and time periods.

T4-same caveat as T1(obj 3 task c is not tied to M&E as well as c in obj2 and d in obj1-

T6-In the rewrite, clearly identify long-term benefit potential M4-A total of $10,000 will be contributed from various sources. This information must be identified in the revised proposal.

Comment:

Sampling designs were not specified. In the revised text, the sponsor references literature sources on sampling design, which could be used, although those sources do not appear in the reference list. It cannot be assumed that proper design will be developed in terms of assuring that the sampling sites are large enough, numerous enough, and selected well enough to adequately represent the streams and fish stocks involved.

The use of single-pass electrofishing is questionable, even in "small" streams because single-pass electrofishing cannot be relied upon to capture 100% of the fish, so abundance cannot be assessed unless at least two passes are made, using an appropriate mark-recapture or multiple-removal method. Also, the response about types of electrofishing current (pulsed and unpulsed DC) demonstrates uncertainty about what is involved. In unpulsed DC electrofishing, fish do swim to the anode. Conductivity of the water is more likely the key to whether unpulsed or pulsed DC is appropriate. Unpulsed DC is well established and in widespread use. In the proposal, the advantages of unpulsed DC are not recognized, resulting in the potential for wasted sampling effort and damage to fish populations.

The list of "Known General Limiting Factors" on p. 6 is a very good idea but contains some odd items. Fecal coliform are a human health matter. References to effects on fish should be given. "Farming/grazing" is an area of human or human-generated activity that can damage fish habitat but to state it as a "limiting factor" is not very helpful. It would be more useful to say what the farming/grazing is actually doing to the fish habitat. For example, "overstory removal" may cause adverse thermal effect that is a limiting factor.

On revision p. 11, in 2nd paragraph of the methods for task c, the proposal should indicate what is being sampled within the lakes.

The proposal's management plan 1 (p. 8) and response Objective 2 (p. 9) involves stocking (native?) salmonids in tributaries. The proposal includes measures to reduce competing non-native species, but this task is not included in the response. The response indicates that monitoring angling removals of planted (or wild) fish by creel survey is not feasible, and lays out an electrofishing plan to monitor effects of planting the trout and effects of measures to reduce competing non-native fishes (p. 9). Presumably, there will be an attempt to relate the fish indices obtained by electrofishing to the planting of trout and possibly to removal of other species. Without information on angling removals, difficult as that information may be to obtain, it seems unlikely that valid conclusions about the effectiveness of management measures can result. Thought should be given to obtaining at least some "index" of relative angling effort among the tributaries. Perhaps one could assume that fishing removes similar portions of the planted trout and the non-native species. Further thought needs to be given to this point.

Comment:

Comment: