FY07-09 proposal 200703800
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Preserving/Enhancing Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout within the Upper Pend Oreille Basin. |
| Proposal ID | 200703800 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish & Game |
| Short description | This project will try to identify populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout for restoration and conservation purposes. We will also try to identify the limiting factors associated with westslope cutthroat trout population declines. |
| Information transfer | Quarterly and Annual Reports will be submitted to BPA to keep other scientists up to date with findings. We will submit 2-3 manuscripts to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for any new findings. Results will also be presented at the annual Idaho Chapter AFS meeting and other regional meetings. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Melo Maiolie | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | mmaiolie@adelphia.net |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Melo Maiolie | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | mmaiolie@adelphia.net |
| Mike Peterson | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | mpeterson@idfg.idaho.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Pend Oreille
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48.2570 | 116.5388 | Pend Oreille Lake and River | Tributaries to Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River upstream of Albeni Falls Dam |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Westslope Cutthroatprimary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199404700 | Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project | The only project currently funded by BPA in the Upper Pend Oreille Subbasin is the Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project (LPOFRP). The LPOFRP deals mostly with restoring sportfisheries in Lake Pend Oreille that were impacted by Albeni Falls Dam. The LPOFR and the proposed project will be administered from the Bayview Research Station located in Bayview, ID on Lake Pend Oreille. The two projects can share office space, equipment, and some manpower to reduce overall costs. |
| BPA | 199500100 | Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish P | The Kalispel Resident Fish Project was designed to assess and determine the habitat conditions in the tributaries to the Pend Oreille River that are limiting to the native bull trout and cutthroat trout populations. Based on the habitat assessments, recommendations for enhancement measures were developed to increase the quality and quantity of habitat for native salmonids. Several opportunities exist throughout the subbasin to treat watersheds where re-invasion would not occur because of man-made and natural barriers. By working with the Kalispel Tribe (through subcontract), we gain their experience in developing these types of eradication projects. |
| BPA | 200204300 | Genetic Bull/Westslope Trout | The Genetic Inventory of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the Pend Oreille Subbasin project was designed to assess the genetic integrity of bull trout and WCT in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River downstream of Albeni Falls Dam into Canada including tributaries to Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake. In addition, the extent of hybridization between bull trout and brook trout, and WCT and rainbow trout was evaluated. Bull trout and WCT samples were collected from 80 locations throughout the Priest Lake and Lower Pend Oreille subbasins, including the Salmo River watershed (Washington and Canada). This project has enabled managers to identify core areas (watersheds) where populations and habitat needs protection and recovery efforts can be implemented. The proposed project will rely heavily on work done from the above project. We will utilize the same genetic markers for comparison purposes and finish the genetic inventory for the entire Pend Oreille subbasin for both bull trout and WCT. |
| BPA | 199700400 | Resident Fish Above Chief Joe | The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project (JSAP) is a management tool using ecosystem principles to manage artificial fish assemblages in altered environments existing in the Columbia River System above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (blocked area). The three-phase approach of this project will enhance the fisheries resource of the blocked area by identifying data gaps, filling data gaps with research, and implementing management recommendations based on research results. |
| Other: Avista Corporation | [no entry] | Native Salmonid Restoration Project | Avista’s Native Salmonid Restoration Project’s goal is to “restore and enhance native salmonid populations”. These two projects will be very important to each program. Through data collection and sharing of information both programs will gain understanding of salmonid populations within the Pend Oreille drainage. We have proposed cost-sharing with Avista biologists and are negotiating an amount at this time. Once the proposed project has determined the limiting factors associated with WCT within the basin Avista could potentially fund some of the restoration work through mitigation funds for construction and operation of the Cabinet Gorge Dam. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Securing populations of native resident fish | To have secure populations of native bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Pend Oreille drainage that are capable of supporting a harvest of 1,000 bull trout and 500 WCT annually in Lake Pend Oreille. | Intermountain | Subbasin Objective 1B1, Strategy a,b,c,d Province Level Objective 1B, 1C1, 1C2, 1C3 Columbia River Basin Level Goal 1B and 1C |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Monitoring and Evaluation of management activities. | After development of the restoration plan (the end of the proposed project), additional projects will be proposed to implement the recommendations and to monitor and evaluate the success of implementation. Once habitat restoration or other limiting factor projects begin, it will be necessary to monitor both the bull trout and WCT populations to identify the positive or negative impacts of the projects on the populations. It will also be necessary to collect genetic samples for selected populations to identify if introgression levels have changed over time. We anticipate continued monitoring of cutthroat trout and bull trout by the Department of Fish and Game that is funded outside of this proposal. Most bull trout and cutthroat trout in the upper Pend Oreille drainage are adfluvial, spending much of their adult life-time in Lake Pend Oreille. The Department monitors both species by conducting creel surveys and estimating their catch, catch rate, and harvest within the lake. Currently creel surveys are conducted at about 5 year intervals on the lake, and were conducted on an annual basis from 1952 to 1980. The next creel survey is scheduled for 2007. These past surveys provide data sets for comparison of catch, harvest, size, and catch rate. From these, we get some indication as to the overall trends in these fish populations and plan on using these data in the future as one potential way to evaluate improvement or declines in these populations. In addition, bull trout redd counts have been, and will continue to be, conducted in tributary streams in the Pend Oreille drainage. These counts are not funded under the proposed project, but will serve as a source for future comparisons. This information may be particularly useful in evaluating future changes that could result from management activities in a particular drainage. Creel surveys and redd counts may not be specific enough to examine the effects of management actions at a particular location. Other types of M&E would be somewhat dependant on the management actions that would be developed based on the inventory of cutthroat and bull trout within the drainage. We can foresee that management alternatives would fall into at least three types of categories. First, in some tributary streams we may find populations of bull trout and cutthroat trout that are healthy, not introgressed by other species (rainbow trout and brook trout are in the Pend Oreille drainage), and where the stream habitat is intact (stable stream channel, minimal impacts from development, good migration corridors). Management in these areas may be largely to protect them from external changes such as logging, road encroachments, and development. M&E in these healthy areas would include monitoring bull trout and cutthroat trout to see it the populations remain healthy. Bull trout redds would continue to be counted each fall as an estimate of adult abundance. These fall surveys would also include an annual check of the habitat for such impacts as road encroachments and potential habitat problems. On a 5 year basis, we would propose monitoring stream reaches in the healthy areas by electrofishing or snorkeling to document presence of undesirable species, determine overall fish densities, and monitor abundance and size of each age class of native fish. Habitat surveys would also be conducted on a 5 year basis. The Department has a standard stream survey protocol that records such characteristics as stream substrate composition, depth, fish data, fish genetic information, habitat type, etc. A second type of area may be found where there have been severe impacts to native fish. Management actions would depend on the severity of the impacts. Some areas are known to be so badly impacted that recovery actions would be prohibitively expensive for the amount of benefit that would be obtained. No M&E would be proposed for these areas unless conditions changed. Likely many areas would fall into a third category between the healthy and the severely impacted areas. Management actions would need to be site-specific to address the causes of problems in each area. Such prescriptions as removal of migration barriers, habitat enhancement, forest planning efforts, exotic fish removal, or erosion prevention efforts, may be needed to improve such areas. M&E efforts would be done on a 1 to 5 year basis depending on the length of time needed for the actions to have an effect. The Department’s standard stream survey format would be used to document habitat changes. This would be the minimum data set to be collected at each stream reach. In addition, genetic monitoring would need to be collected where management actions are made to protect genetic integrity. | 6/1/2010 | 9/30/2010 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | NEPA compliance of project | Tasks which involve bull trout will be discussed with BPA to assist them in producing an Environmental Compliance Report. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $60 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Management of budget and administration of the project. | Work conducted to manage and administer the project effectively. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $137,223 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | a: Conduct a literature review to collect all of the current and past data and coordinate with other state, federal, tribal and private agencies to insure we are not duplicating previously conducted work. | The first step of this project will be to conduct a complete literature review of the bull trout and WCT data available (during the past 10 years) within the drainage. We will also work closely with other agencies such as the Forest Service, Kalispel Tribe, DEQ, and Avista to insure we are not duplicating previous or on-going work. | 3/1/2007 | 5/31/2009 | $25,098 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | b: Approximately 30-40 (per year) randomly selected streams will be surveyed using electrofishing and/or snorkeling sampling methods to determine both presence/absence and abundance estimates of bull trout and WCT. | Arcview geographic information system (GIS) software will be used to determine the stream order (or strata) as well as the total kilometers of stream within each major drainage (Geographic Management Units, GMU) into Lake Pend Oreille. For this project we have identified 13 GMU’s, which include upper Pack River (above Highway 95 bridge), lower Pack River (below Highway 95 bridge), Fry Creek, Sand Creek, Trestle Creek, Lightning Creek, Twin Creek, Johnson Creek, Granite Creek, North Gold Creek, Gold Creek, Priest River, and Pend Oreille River. Sample sites will be selected via the EMAP sampling protocols (Diaz-Ramos et al. 1996, Stevens and Olsen 2004). At each sample site, abundance will be estimated in each randomly selected 100-meter sample location using multiple pass depletion methods and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the estimates using the MicroFish software package (Van Deventer and Platts 1989) or a similar software package. All fish sampled will be identified to species, measured to the nearest millimeter (total length) and weighed to the nearest gram. Stream surveys will be conducted following spring runoff to ensure optimal sampling conditions and capture efficiency with the electrofishing gear. Following the estimation of individual site density estimates, we will then estimate total bull trout and WCT abundance with confidence limits for each of the 13 GMU’s using EMAP mean and variance formulas (see Diaz-Ramos et al. 1996, Stevens and Olsen 2004). There have been numerous studies that have shown that first-order streams are typically unable to support salmonid populations for a variety of reasons (Dunham and Rieman 1999; Kruse et al. 1997; Meyer et al. 2003), therefore much of our sampling will focus on second order and higher tributaries to the lake. We will subsample a group of first order tributaries to provide a way to project estimates within these locations. The above methods were used by Meyer et al. (2003) to estimate abundance and to determine current status of YCT in the upper Snake River basin. | 5/14/2007 | 10/30/2009 | $107,004 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | c: Stream habitat data will be collected from each fish sampling location. | We will use the same habitat parameters as Meyers et al. (2003) to collect data useful for identifying limiting factors associated with habitat for WCT. Physical parameters that will be collected include Rosgen channel type (Rosgen 1994), stream order, conductivity, water temperature, bank riparian vegetation, percent gradient, sinuosity, valley bottom type, streamflow condition, land use activity, mean width, mean and maximum depth, numbers of large woody debris, percentage of substrate, percent cover, and bank stability. Other parameters maybe added or identified as the project progresses. | 5/14/2007 | 10/30/2009 | $61,115 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | d: Non-lethal fin clips will be collected for bull trout and WCT from random sampling sites and sent to the appropriate lab for analysis. | For the three-year project, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout will be obtained from sampling locations in the Pend Oreille River and Pend Oreille Lake subbasin in Washington and Idaho. Fish tissue samples will be collected primarily through electrofishing. Sample sites above/below the long bridge will be consistent with streams selected in Task 1.b. We will try to sample 50 WCT individuals from each selected stream and up to 50 bull trout per stream. Both adults and juveniles will be collected. In streams where fish are abundant, adults are preferred over juveniles. A maximum of 10 fish will be collected per 100 meters of stream length, ensuring that the sample is representative of the population and does not contain many closely related individuals. If all samples are collected within close proximity, then the population structure may not be indicative of the entire stream. However, in some streams this may be unavoidable due to the low numbers of fish. Typically in these situations, WCT would be in isolated headwater reaches. Fish will be collected using a Smith-Root LR-24 backpack electrofishing unit. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout will be anesthetized with tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222). A small piece of fin (approximately 1 mm2) will be removed and placed directly into a labeled vial containing absolute ethanol. Exact sample locations will be determined using data collected with a global positioning system (GPS). Locations will then be downloaded and mapped with ArcView GIS. Total length (mm) and weight (grams) will be measured for each fish. | 5/14/2007 | 10/30/2009 | $107,002 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | e: We will assess the microsatellite DNA of collected samples to determine population structure and differentiation. | Microsatellite DNA analysis will be conducted for approximately 15 loci for westslope cutthroat (e.g.,Ots-101; Sco-116; Omm-1138; One-108; Omy-1001; Ots-107; Omm-1146; Sco-103; Ots-103; Oki-10; Ogo-3; One-2; Omy-325; One-101; One-18) and 10 loci for bull trout. WDFW will collect microsatellite data using an ABI-377 automated DNA sequencer utilizing in-lane size standards to achieve a precision in size calling of approximately 0.2 bp. The DNA loci of interest will be amplified and fluorescently labeled via the polymerase chain reaction (PCR; see Saiki et al., 1988). Raw data from the DNA sequencer will be processed using Genescan (v. 3.0) and Genotyper (v. 2.5) software (PE Biosystems). Programs such as GENEPOP (Raymond and Rousset, 1995), MICROSAT (Goldstein et al., 1995), and ARLEQUIN (Schneider et al., 1997) will be used to analyze the resulting data. Effective population size (Ne) for these populations will be estimated from microsatellite data using linkage disequilibrium methods (Hill 1981, Waples 1991) as well as from estimates of unbiased (expected) heterozygosity under the assumption of mutation-drift equilibrium using the Single-Step Mutation Model (SSM) and the Infinite Allele Model (IAM) with a mutation rate of 2.05E-4 (Garza and Williamson 2001) based on methods from Lehmann et al. (1998) and Rooney et al. (1999). | 9/1/2007 | 11/30/2009 | $225,000 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Analysis of all tissue samples collected |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | f: Diagnostic nDNA and mtDNA markers will be used to assess introgressed or hybridized populations of bull trout and WCT. | The IDFG’s Eagle Genetics Laboratory will perform a genetic screen for hybridization on the collected samples. Total genomic DNA will be extracted from an approximately 1 X 1mm piece of fin clip following methods described by Paragamian et al. (1999). Seven simple sequence repeat (SSR) nuclear DNA (nDNA) markers, Occ34, Occ35, Occ36, Occ37, Occ38, Occ42, and OM55, that exhibit fixed diagnostic differences between RBT and WCT will be amplified for each sample (Ostberg and Rodriquez 2002; 2004). This number of co-dominant nDNA markers provides 99% probability of detecting RBT introgression at a level of 1% or greater with a sample size of 50. The OM55 marker also differentiates WCT trout from RBT and YCT. A diagnostic restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) marker (Cytochrome-B digested with HinfI; Mays 2002) will also be screened on all individuals to differentiate maternal lineages of WCT, RBT and YCT and assess the direction of hybridization. The SSR amplifications and the RFLP mtDNA digest will be electrophoresed on 3% agarose gels and visualized as band patterns when fluoresced under UV-light. Tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and linkage equilibrium will be performed using GENEPOP 3.4 (Raymond and Rousset, 1995) to assess if samples at each location were drawn from a single randomly mating population or an admixture of RBT and WCT. Bull trout samples will be analyzed for hybridization with brook trout at the USFWS laboratory in Washington using methods performed during the Genetic Inventory of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the Pend Oreille Subbasin project. | 10/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $135,000 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Analysis of all tissue samples collected |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | g: Results from genetic analysis will be used to develop a map assessing introgression levels and identifying areas for recovery projects. | We will overlay the results of the genetics analysis and barriers to fish movements on a map using ArcView GIS software to determine how secure genetically pure populations of bull trout and WCT are from sources of introgressed populations. We may also overlay various other layers to illustrate spatial distribution of lower levels of purity. | 1/15/2009 | 3/1/2009 | $2,263 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | h: All collected data will be entered into the IDFG’s Stream Survey Database as baseline data for habitat restoration projects. | Data will be entered for each surveyed stream into the IDFG’s Stream Survey Database. | 9/1/2007 | 11/30/2009 | $11,465 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | i: Analysis of data collected in work elements b, c, e, f, and g will be performed to identify limiting factors to WCT in the upper Pend Oreille basin. | Data will be analyzed using multiple regression methods to determine relationships between areas that contain WCT and those areas that do not, similar to methods identified in Meyers et al. (2003). We will remain flexible with the analysis of these data because there may be new techniques available to assist us with our modeling. Limiting factors identified will be investigated to determine feasibility of restoration projects to those WCT populations. We will also use the genetic data to try to identify limiting factors between hybridized and pure WCT populations (such as barriers, spawning sites, or anthropogenic factors). The data analyzed under this task will serve as baseline information and serve as a template for development of restoration activities. Once this task is complete, we will generate a restoration plan that identifies key tributary spawning and rearing habitats to be rehabilitated. | 9/15/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $111,835 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | j: Generation of a restoration plan that identifies key tributary spawning and rearing habitats to be rehabilitated and other associated limiting factors. | We will develop a restoration plan that incorporates the data collected from this project. It will identify key tributaries containing spawning and rearing habitat. All limiting factors will be identified and discussed. We will also make recommendations as to which streams should be chosen for restoration projects. We will compare current and past data within the basin to determine population trends and provide sport fishing regulation recommendations if current regulations are determined to be a limiting factor in at-risk populations. | 11/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $38,607 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | k: We will make project presentation where needed to keep interested parties updated with project progress. | Presentations will be produced using PowerPoint software. This information will be presented at professional society meetings or where necessary. | 2/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $13,716 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | l: We will provide annual and completion reports to BPA. If funded, we will submit 2-3 manuscripts to peer-reviewed scientific journals summarizing project results. | Compile all data and coordinate with IDFG and WDFW labs on results of microsatellite DNA analysis and hybridization findings. At this point a final report will be written by IDFG, Kalispel Tribe, and WDFW and submitted to BPA. | 11/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $84,554 |
|
Biological objectives Securing populations of native resident fish |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1 biologist, 2 temps. | $58,857 | $60,623 | $62,445 |
| Fringe Benefits | 1 Biologist, 2 temps. | $20,194 | $20,800 | $21,425 |
| Other | Kalispel Tribe Natural Resource Department Contract | $119,897 | $121,061 | $111,837 |
| Other | Genetic Analysis Contracts | $72,000 | $72,000 | $56,000 |
| Supplies | Rent, Field and Office Supplies, Vehicle Rental, Professional and Training Meetings | $35,532 | $16,547 | $16,823 |
| Travel | Sampling trips and coordination meetings | $6,340 | $6,530 | $6,726 |
| Overhead | Generally about 20% of operating and personnel. | $60,413 | $58,840 | $55,052 |
| Totals | $373,233 | $356,401 | $330,308 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $1,059,942 |
| Total work element budget: | $1,059,942 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avista Corporation | additional personnel, equipment use and genetic analysis | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $225,025 FY 2011 estimated budget: $225,025 |
Comments: After development of the restoration plan, additional projects will be proposed to implement the recommendations and to monitor and evaluate the success of implementation. |
Future O&M costs: Once habitat restoration or other limiting factor projects begin it will be necessary to monitor both the bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout populations to identify if the projects are having any effects on the populations.
Termination date: 2012
Comments: After development of the restoration plan, additional projects will be proposed to implement the recommendations.
Final deliverables: Annual reports for project updates as well as a restoration plan describing bull trout and WCT status and the limiting factors associated with recovery and protection. The final report will also be available to regional fisheries managers to analysis and use as a tool for watershed management decisions.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| Response to ISRP 200703800 | Jul 2006 |
| Response to ISRP 200703800 | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $291,568 | $291,568 | $291,568 | $874,704 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $291,568 | $291,568 | $291,568 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: Recommended project - tier 2, this project shifts to tier 1. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal is for a new project to assess the status of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in the Upper Pend Oreille Basin and to develop a plan to manage for them and for a sport fishery. The proposal is well developed in its problem review and analysis. It establishes adequate rationale and significance to regional programs, and it explains the relationship to other projects. It states an overall goal of ensuring self-sustaining populations of these species, as well as a single objective of securing abundances of these fishes that will support numerically specified annual sport harvests. In summary, although the overall project concept and goal are mostly worthy, and the sponsors have the necessary techniques well in mind, a response is needed to include better consideration of future monitoring and evaluation of management. The proposal’s section on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is inadequate. Vague reference to a future intent is not enough. Even if the management plan does not yet exist, the sponsors should discuss how they would go about devising the M&E element of it. They should show what its components would be, particularly in view of the life histories of the species involved and the characteristics of the ecosystem(s) in which they live, including aspects of its sport fishery and other human influences.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal is for a new project to assess the status of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in the Upper Pend Oreille Basin and to develop a plan to manage for them and for a sport fishery. The proposal is well developed in its problem review and analysis. It establishes adequate rationale and significance to regional programs, and it explains the relationship to other projects. It states an overall goal of ensuring self-sustaining populations of these species, as well as a single objective of securing abundances of these fishes that will support numerically specified annual sport harvests. Although the overall project concept and goal were mostly worthy as expressed in the proposal, and the sponsors have the necessary techniques well in mind, the ISRP felt a response was needed to include better consideration of future monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of management. The proposal’s M&E section was not specific enough, and even though the management plan did not yet exist, the sponsors still needed to discuss how they would go about devising the M&E element of it. The response was appropriate to the stage of project development. The example data support their contentions. The sponsor has the multifaceted basis for appropriate M&E well in mind and, in fact, already has been doing some of the needed measurements routinely on streams that are involved.