The portion of the response describing priority ranking of habitat enhancement sites is somewhat unclear because the response states "a priority ranking based on water quality" will be used but also states that Tribal departments meet to rate potential habitat enhancement projects based on Tribal goals to "enhance productivity and water quality of springs and streams that support native fish habitat." The cause of confusion is whether the goal is to enhance productivity of springs and streams for other than native fish or do native fish have priority in selecting activities to enhance productivity and water quality? The ISRP suggests that the sponsors should make clear during contracting that the project will prioritize native fish needs over other productivity and water quality considerations.

The sponsors adequately provided specific references to appropriate RM&E components of the project.The sponsors are urged to interpret results with caution because controls may be biased due to non-random initial selection of treatment sites. Random selection from both treatment and control sites after treatments have been purposefully applied to selected sites is not a valid method of randomization. The proposed methodology of identifying directional hypotheses (one-tailed), focal species, and indicators is appreciated.

The ISRP appreciated receiving details of responses in North Fork Skull and Strickland Canyon creeks to fencing and had several comments. It is clear that extensive beaver activity poses challenges to monitoring. Under the circumstances staff should consider some modifications or additions to sampling protocol. Larger fish in pools will need to be sampled by snorkeling, if feasible, or raft-mounted electrofishing. Using backpack shockers to make a mark-recapture estimate would not be successful as larger fish would not be included. It will be critical to understand the extent to which spawning is successful above beaver ponds or between them. Based on the data reported it appears that it may not be successfully occurring in Skull Creek. Also it is apparent that some individual trees need to be protected from beaver, and management of beaver numbers is needed if they are to continue to play a long-term positive role in the ecosystem.

The response about predation and non-native species, as regards proposed habitat work in the East Fork Owyhee River, is not entirely satisfactory. What evidence exists to support the expectation that lowering stream temperatures will impede bass movement into redband inhabited stream segments and limit predation? Evidence is needed that temperature changes resulting from habitat actions would be close enough to the critical temperature threshold to result in the desired shift in bass and redband behavior. This should be provided during contracting. Explanation of how human transport of non-native rainbow trout around the proposed elevated culvert in newly connected streams will be controlled and how migration of redband trout below the elevated culvert will be controlled should be provided during contracting. Adequate details were presented in the response to describe the placement of fish screens at the main Tribal irrigation diversion on the East Fork Owyhee River to protect wild redband trout.

The sponsors provided most of the information the ISRP requested. The ISRP qualifications can be resolved during contracting and do not require further ISRP review.

The sponsors need to provide the following:

1.      The procedure used for selecting and prioritizing potential habitat enhancement sites.

2.      The design of the RM&E program including sample site selection, methods, and metrics. Reviewers are aware that an RME plan was developed several years ago by BioAnalysts Inc., but specific references to appropriate components of that plan are needed.

3.      An analysis of the M&E data on habitat and fish that have been collected to date. Presumably this would be the evaluation of the 2006-2010 results being produced by a consultant, as mentioned in the proposal.

4.      Detail regarding Deliverable 17, a fish screen. Apparently there is the intent to install or replace one but no details are presented.

 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The goal of this project is to protect and enhance stream and riparian habitat on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Cattle grazing is a major land use problem on the reservation. Most of the work conducted to date has focused on excluding cattle from springs and riparian areas to protect and restore stream habitat. The sponsors plan not only to continue this kind of work but also to begin instream habitat enhancement projects

The project is consistent with the Owyhee Subbasin Plan. The Technical Background could be more detailed. The problem statement is minimal and consists of one paragraph. It is simply a broad overview of the activities the Tribe is taking to protect and enhance habitat. The proposal would be improved with more discussion of the background and history of the project. This would include the progress that has been made over the years since project inception in 1997, the problems that have been encountered, how they have been addressed, and any changes in direction the project has taken. A map showing the location of some of the more important streams and springs would have been helpful. Details about the M&E program should be provided. 

The four objectives provide a relatively clear picture of what the proposed work is trying to accomplish.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The program has undertaken an impressive number of habitat enhancement and protection projects, as many as 130, but no quantitative results were presented on trends in habitat and fish from these projects. Rather the sponsors address implementation accomplishments in a lengthy list that identifies the location where work was done and the type of actions undertaken including off-channel water troughs and riparian and spring fencing, but present no results of this work. It is unclear how successful the habitat enhancement projects have been or how fish have benefited from the projects. There is no information given on status of fish populations.

The ISRP identified this problem in the 2007-09 review of this project. The comment is still apropos, “a summary of biological results is not provided. Past accomplishments refer to extensive monitoring and data collections, so one would hope that some habitat trend responses could have been reported on. The proposal, however, indicates the data and statistical analysis to support effectiveness monitoring is forthcoming as the M&E Plan is executed.” Analysis of data collected over the past 14 years by this project has not occurred. 

To their credit, the sponsors freely acknowledge this problem in their proposal: “Data analysis, data sharing and reporting remain the shortcomings of the program.” The sponsors also have made a commitment to undertake comprehensive data analysis: “The monitoring and evaluation data will be provided in a stand-alone report covering data from 2006 through 2010 scheduled for completion by spring 2012. Outstanding reports for FY2009 and FY2010 will be completed by February 28, 2012.”

More important for the current review is the statement: "The Tribes are currently in the process of contracting with an environmental consulting firm to tabulate and display the monitoring data collected by the Tribes from 2006-2010 which will allow the project manager, in conjunction with the department director and fisheries biologist, to analyze, interpret and report on the data that has been collected to-date. The project manager has projected completion date of January 31, 2012 for receipt of this work product." We are encouraged that the sponsors finally will be undertaking this analysis. That information should be made available to the ISRP in the response loop.

 ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The ISRP’s evaluation is pending a response from the sponsor.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors state that their program accounts for potential effects of: 1) climate change; 2) non-native species; and 3) predation increases. How their work helps ameliorate climate change effects on water temperature is discussed briefly. It is not clear from the proposal how serious a problem non-native species and predation are, and how the proposed habitat work will help alleviate these problems. 

The sponsors speak of a status and trends monitoring program and an effectiveness monitoring program, but little detail concerning these programs is provided. The sponsors state that they will employ a GRTS sampling design for the program by referring to a protocol in MonitoringMethods.org, but few details about the design are provided. For example, have the actual field sites have been selected? Will the GRTS design include sites that have undergone habitat enhancement or just sites that have not been treated? It is unclear whether an M&E program has been in place or if this is a new effort.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Many of the deliverables listed are really components of the process such as report submission. Several of the deliverables seem to involve the M&E plan developed by BioAnalysts several years ago, but, as mentioned above, that reference is unclear enough to make understanding difficult. Deliverable 17 is to install or replace a fish screen and seems to lack further detail anywhere. More detail is needed.

The sponsors should have described their rationale for selecting and prioritizing potential project sites.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/16/2012 10:28:23 PM.