This proposal is truly transformational from previous work by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe. They are taking the approach that subbasin planning envisioned. This is good solid work that needs to be published; some of the principal investigators have a record of this. The CDA Fisheries project is a model for an approach for the problem. Additional sampling work may allow investigators to find out some important aspects of native trout life histories. Some telemetry work will be informative. The ISRP compliments Angelo Vitale and John Firehammer for the clear presentations and for their efforts to combine wildlife and fisheries activities, in Benewah Creek as well as in the Hangman watershed.

Overall, this proposal represents excellent planning, analysis, synthesis, and progress toward the goal of restoring adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout to CDA Lake and its tributaries. The factors affecting these fish are many, ranging from large-scale landscape-level habitat processes to non-native species invasions. The investigators have done a very good job of studying each of these, or developing plans to do so, and integrating and prioritizing restoration actions to optimize management. Likewise, the outreach and education activities planned are helping local landowners understand and support the projects.

Several aspects of the analysis of cutthroat trout survival and production might be improved by using state-of-the-art methods and software (Program MARK), if these are not already planned. Likewise, further consideration of brook trout invasions at a riverscape scale could yield important insights in their control.

The proposal was very long (61 pages), which detracted from the review; however, many of the project findings were summarized in the proposal which is good. A number of appropriate metrics are being collected along with the habitat restoration effort, for example, adfluvial juveniles per spawner and juvenile-to-spawner survival rates. The ultimate success of the program for adfluvial trout may hinge on the ability to identify and control factors limiting survival from the juvenile-to-adult stage, such as predation by non-native fishes. The overall annual cost of the project is high relative to the eventual native fish population size, but the project is diverse with many activities and areas of focus. 

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

This is an ongoing project designed to address the highest priority objective in the Coeur d’Alene Subbasin: to protect and restore remaining stocks of native resident westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) to ensure their continued existence in the basin and provide harvestable surpluses of naturally reproducing adfluvial adult fish in Lake Coeur d’Alene and in Lake and Benewah creeks, with stable or increasing population trends for resident life history types in Evans and Alder creeks.

This is a well-designed and well-presented proposal that systematically documents linkages to regional planning documents such as the Coeur d’Alene Subbasin Plan, past ISAB and ISRP reviews and guiding documents, and to regional strategies for recovering tributary habitats. The investigators provide excellent and detailed information about how their project relates to the Fish and Wildlife Program, and seven other programs in the Columbia River Basin. The work is clearly well integrated with current plans.

Technical background in the proposal is thorough and systematic, leading logically to the proposed and ongoing objectives and actions. The proposal clearly states that the main goal is to increase production and survival of adfluvial and resident westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) to make up for lost production of anadromous salmonids. The technical background needed to understand the myriad factors that affect these WCT is almost always very well detailed. Some earlier proposals focused on using artificial production to increase westslope cutthroat trout in Benewah Creek and in Lake Coeur d’Alene without adequately considering and attempting to address limiting factors. In contrast, this proposal describes known and potential factors that appear to be inhibiting cutthroat trout production. These include sediment input from past land use practices along Benewah Creek, lack of coarse woody debris, barriers to fish movement and migrations, and competition with non-native brook trout.

Strategies, objectives, and actions flow logically from this discussion and analysis. The five stated main objectives appear sound, clear, and measurable, though several will be very challenging to accomplish because of the spatial scale over which WCT complete their life cycle in this stream-lake ecosystem. Objectives include improving stream habitat, reconnecting old floodplain meadow sections, evaluation of habitat restoration actions, and reduce brook trout abundance and densities. Objectives seem well matched to the discussion of limiting factors in the proposal. The project objectives are tiered to the Intermountain Province Objectives 2A1-2A4 and to the Columbia River Basin Goal 2A that addresses resident fish substitution for anadromous fish losses (Intermountain Province Subbasin Plan 2004). Project objectives are: 1) improve stream habitats; 2) track trends in salmonid demographics and population structure; 3) evaluate effectiveness of habitat restoration; 4) address impacts from non-native introduced fishes; and 5) increase cooperation and coordination among stakeholders.

Several emerging limiting factors, such as predation by non-native fishes, are objectives of the proposal. Other project objectives, such as increasing habitat complexity and connectivity, are well integrated to help ameliorate the impending changes in climate variability. No formal modeling was done, however, and would likely be premature.

The proposal also includes objectives for understanding the lacustrine portion of the adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout life history and the impact that non-native northern pike may be having on the survival of WSCT, particularly during their first year outmigration into the shallow southern littoral zone of Lake CDA where northern pike are abundant. This portion of the proposal seems the least well developed at this time; however, the approach and proposed actions are again, logical and deserving of investigation.

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

History: The CDA approach to management of Benewah Creek and its cutthroat trout has evolved over time and now appears to be solidly grounded in modern ecological and restoration science. A fundamental goal of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe Fisheries Program is to identify restoration and enhancement needs and opportunities in areas that have the greatest potential to improve habitat and translate into positive biological responses to recover depressed native cutthroat trout populations.

The approach attempts to translate watershed analyses, resource inventories and assessments and monitoring results into the management actions needed to achieve project goals. The recent project history reflects a shift from opportunistic implementation of restoration projects to a more systematic approach for prioritizing management actions consistent with the refugia approach described by Reeves et al (1995) and Frissell and Bayles (1996) and a multispecies, analytical approach (Beechie and Bolton 1999). The approach attempts to protect the best first and expand restoration outward from areas of relatively intact habitats and populations. The multispecies analytical approach has been implemented as more detailed knowledge of factors limiting recovery have been developed. Actions focus on suites of landscape processes considered necessary to conserve multiple species.

Accomplishments: The ISRP was impressed by the careful formal planning and prioritization of restoration developed in this proposal. The investigators take a highly integrated approach to understand the historical habitat conditions, and ecosystem disturbances and processes that create and sustain habitat for WCT in this basin. They integrate knowledge of ecohydrology and channel-floodplain-riparian vegetation linkages in their work, which is uncommon. From this, they develop goals for instream habitat restoration that are in line with these natural processes, such as encouraging "ecosystem engineering" by beavers to create suitable habitat for WCT. All of this is a result of accomplishments in past data collection, analysis, and further research and synthesis based on these results, which appears to have been very well done, overall.

Second, it appears that the investigators have fairly recently realized that they will need a comprehensive mark-recapture program using PIT tags to develop robust estimates of production and survival of WCT by life stage, in order to understand which suite of factors are limiting their numbers and vital rates, and where in the river-lake system these bottlenecks occur. As such, we wondered whether employing a sophisticated tool like Program MARK would be most useful (see website of Dr. Gary White, Colorado State University), which can be used to estimate capture probabilities, abundance, survival, movement, and parameters like temporary emigration of fish using state-of-the-art analysis and testing methods.

Third, we were impressed with the approach the investigators are using to consider effects of non-native species at riverscape and lakescape scales. Clearly, like WCT, brook trout in streams also will use habitat in a spatially dynamic way, as will northern pike and smallmouth bass in CDA Lake. Understanding these dynamics may allow intercepting the non-native fish using traps or other gear at key locations where they spawn, or past which they move, leading to more cost-effective control methods in this situation where complete removal is likely impossible.

Results: This section features a nicely described logical sequence from restoration objectives (Table 1), moving through prioritizations (Table 2), into watershed functions and processes, which are tied to specific assessment techniques and procedures (Table 3). Tables 4 and 5 work through site-specific restoration actions and priorities. This is a very nice and defensible approach. For example, since 2004, 6.8 km of habitats have been made accessible through removal of passage barriers, 457 m of stream habitats have been treated with additions of coarse wood, and 6.2 km of degraded mainstem and tributary habitats and 20.3 hectares of associated floodplain have been treated through large-scale channel restoration. Although we have yet to see direct evidence of a significant response by cutthroat trout, we observed more pronounced positive trajectories in abundance in tributaries of Benewah Creek compared to the watersheds that have received less management intervention in recent years.

Investigators are working to understand the entire life history of adfluvial westslope cutthroat trout in Benewah and Lake creeks. Given that recent PIT-tag data suggest that adfluvial juvenile-to-spawner return rates are exceptionally low in their monitored systems, they are placing a stronger emphasis on understanding the processes and mechanisms that are impacting the suitability of rearing habitats in Lake Coeur d’Alene. As an initial step toward this management goal, a collaborative study with the University of Idaho is currently underway to better understand whether predation by northern pike and smallmouth bass is a predominant mechanism regulating juvenile in-lake survival rates.

It would be good to know what percentage of available degraded versus adequate habitat has been addressed by these activities since 2004, as a means to evaluate how far the effort has progressed. The collection of recruits per spawner (R/S) data and the change in objectives based on the low survival of juvenile to adult stage is good. The proposal has embraced the ISAB recommendation to use an Intensive Watershed Management approach, which involves use of treatment control sites to better identify factors affecting the resident fish.

Adaptive Management: This project is well conceived and appears well executed. It is rich in data slides and tables, which demonstrate results from the last 7 years that feed directly into the adaptive management section. The changes made in light of new information were clearly described, including 1) developing a new understanding about how stream-riparian habitat is formed and inundated during floods, 2) adjusting removal strategies for non-native brook trout to account for their patchy distribution and vulnerability in spawning habitat, and 3) developing a new study to address potential for non-native fishes in Lake CDA to be an important limiting factor. The proposal and study are grounded in fisheries, conservation, and stream restoration literature and emphasizes data collection through monitoring in order to evaluate progress and modify, if needed, project goals and actions. This is the essence of adaptive management.

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: The authors have apparently responded to a main comment about the potential for non-native fishes in CDA Lake to reduce WCT survival. The goal of testing these effects, in part through a graduate student project, and the actions proposed based on these findings including developing new hypotheses, were clearly laid out and logical. The authors have also paid close attention to ISRP and ISAB studies and recommendations about habitat restoration, landscape and watershed scale activities, and the role of monitoring in adaptive management as evidenced by the proposal itself. 

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The CDA approach to management of Benewah Creek and its cutthroat trout has evolved over time and now appears to be solidly grounded in modern ecological and restoration science. The CDA Fisheries Habitat Project has considerable monitoring, evaluation and reporting associated with it. Results show progress toward overall project goals. The system in place also sets the stage well for the use of adaptive management. A fundamental goal of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe Fisheries Program is to identify restoration and enhancement needs and opportunities in areas that have the greatest potential to improve habitat and translate into positive biological responses to recover depressed native cutthroat trout populations.

The approach attempts to translate watershed analyses, resource inventories and assessments and monitoring results into the management actions needed to achieve project goals. The recent project history reflects a shift from opportunistic implementation of restoration projects to a more systematic approach for prioritizing management actions consistent with a refugia approach and a multispecies, analytical approach. The approach first protects the best then expands restoration outward into other habitats and populations. Actions are focused on suites of landscape processes considered necessary to conserve multiple species.

The project shows evidence of careful formal planning and prioritization of restoration activities using an integrated approach to understand the historical habitat conditions, and ecosystem disturbances and processes that create and sustain habitat for WCT in this basin. All of this is a result of accomplishments in past data collection, analysis, and further research and synthesis based on these results, which appears to have been very well done, overall.

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

Very well done, as described above. The Additional Relationships described in the proposal show that this project is well integrated into other mitigation and watershed projects, leading to synergistic and "value added" effects of coordination among projects. With respect to limiting factors, the sponsors recognize the importance of the low survival of the adfluvial juvenile to adult stage and are attempting to identify factors such as predation in the lake. Predation may constrain population increase.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverable Description: The deliverables were clearly laid out, overall. Those most clear were for 1) Habitat restoration, 3A&B) Responses to habitat restoration, 4) Non-native species control, and 5) Community outreach and education. The deliverables associated with 2) Abundance and production of WCT were less clear in some cases and might be expanded or considered further as outlined below. The project's recent (2005-present) deliverable status has an average completion rate of 94% (170 of 180 deliverables). Incomplete deliverables have generally been carried forward into subsequent contracts and have been completed in nearly all instances.

Study Design: The study design was quite comprehensive, sophisticated, and well planned overall. We were very impressed with how well integrated the many components were. Specific points to consider that might improve the study results are:

A. As described above, estimates of spawner abundance, juvenile production, survival in the lake, juvenile abundance, survival rates in streams, and movements among habitat types might be more fully integrated using a design that could be analyzed in Program MARK as one large integrated analysis. In fact, data from two systems (Benewah Creek and Lake Creek) might be analyzed together, even if processes differ between them, and allow data to be "shared" across systems, increasing power to detect important effects (see Saunders et al. 2011 NAJFM for such an analysis of stream trout abundance estimates). 

B. We were unclear about whether rainbow trout are native in this watershed, and if not, what the status of rainbow trout invasion is. Could climate change potentially trigger new invasions? Work by Clint Muhlfeld in Glacier National Park seems to be showing the potential danger of such invasions, and how management might be used to reduce them.

C. Untreated controls are very useful, but it is not clear that they were selected at random. This is very difficult in such a large-scale study. However, one should describe how they were selected, how potential bias was reduced, and acknowledge that the comparison is useful but not a true treatment-control comparison. Several books like those by Brian Manly may help couch these comparisons in appropriate terms.

D. We had some concerns about the use of single-pass electrofishing to estimate CPUE across stream sites.

The deliverable is: DELV-2D: Indices of cutthroat trout abundance in stream reaches: Indices of cutthroat trout abundance in tributary and mainstem habitats in Lake, Benewah, Alder, and Evans creek watersheds will be annually computed employing single pass electroshocking at established 200 ft index sites. These annually computed indices will be used to track trends in cutthroat trout abundance at various spatial scales within watersheds, and to evaluate changes in the spatial distribution of cutthroat trout within mainstem and tributary reaches.

The authors justify the use of single-pass sampling based on a high correlation between the number of WCT captured on the first pass and the number of marked fish released the previous day after one-pass sampling. They state that the number estimated the second day from multiple-pass sampling underestimated the "true abundance" of marked fish released, and that this is likely due to biases inherent in depletion sampling described in two papers (Peterson et al. 2004; Rosenberger and Dunham 2005). 

Given that no block nets were used to enclose the marked fish, might the lower number estimated the second day be at least partly due to emigration of marked fish after their release the first day? Saunders et al. (2011, NAJFM) showed that depletion estimates can be accurate, based on a similar study design using fences, and a more complete analysis.

More importantly, the use of single-pass estimates as CPUE rests on the critical assumption that capture probabilities are equal across sites, years, and different crews, which may not be strictly true, or even similar. Thus, if single-pass estimates are to be used to reduce work load and therefore increase the spatial distribution of sampling, which is a good thing in this case, then it would seem wise to validate these capture probabilities on a systematic or probabilistic design. Otherwise, a large amount of data will likely not stand the rigors of scientific review, and hence conclusions could be discounted by others.

One practical point is that it appears that this deliverable currently requires only about 3% of the total funding for the project. Therefore, if the data to be generated are considered critical to the decisions made, then more funding and emphasis could be placed on generating estimates that can stand the rigor of review.

E. Under Deliverable 2E, we wondered whether analysis of age from scales could underestimate true ages. If so, it seems wise to validate these ages for a subsample of fishes using otoliths. Again, conclusions should rest on data that have been validated. In high-altitude streams, cutthroat trout may not grow enough the first year to create an annulus, for example. Likewise, older fish may resorb edges of scales, making annuli difficult to distinguish, and also leading to underestimates.

F. The Priority rankings in Table 6 are identical to the Management Sensitivity rankings, so it was unclear what new information is gained beyond this? Neither fish abundance nor wood abundance seems to influence priority.

G. In Table 7, it was unclear on what estimator these abundance estimates are based, and what is the level of confidence for the interval?

H. Is visibility sufficient to use snorkeling to determine whether WCT are using deep restored pools during summer?

I. We agree that an important hypothesis to test is whether adfluvial CT life histories can resist BK invasion better than isolated resident ones. If the study can be designed to measure this, the results would be very important, and should be published.

J. Along with the ideas being considered for control of brook trout, would it be cost effective to run several weirs to intercept moving brook trout, which tend to move as runoff is coming down, and for spawning (see Gowan and Fausch 1996 and Peterson and Fausch 2003, both in CJFAS)?

K. As support for increasing the complexity and resiliency of habitats to ameliorate climate change, and the potential for brook trout to be influenced more strongly than WCT, see the new paper by Wenger et al. (2011; Proceedings National Academy of Sciences). These findings are reported there. 4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org: See comments above.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org:

See comments above.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 12:31:33 PM.

Reviewers appreciate the focus, logic, and clarity provided by the response. That 15-page document showed evidence of a quality program with evidence of results, sound monitoring and a good potential for benefiting native resident fish. Upon reconsideration, although the original proposal had some deficiencies, the ISRP feels it should have given this a "response requested" in the initial review. In the current streamlined review process, with the absence of a site visit and verbal interactive presentations, it is more vital than ever that a proposal for an ongoing project adequately describe results and future plans. The original proposal for this project was extremely long (90+ pages), unfocused, and contained much semi-relevant material. When reviewers noted the absence of, for example, a description of how fish populations had changed over time, they reacted too critically. The trend and interannual abundance data provided in the response was nicely summarized and especially helpful.

As significantly clarified in this new material, the broad-based, long-term aquatic monitoring appears appropriate. There is clear utility of the monitoring to provide information for, for example, the land acquisition project 200204500 that apparently got much of its updated habitat and fish information from this project.

Reviewers appreciate the new discussion of the ongoing brook trout removal program and agree with sponsors that both the no-action and the fish toxicant alternatives are not preferred. Reviewers did not favor the approach that seemed to be advocated in the original proposal of "piecemeal" electrofishing continued over a number of years. That method usually removes juveniles and gives survivors ample time to compensate, leading to no gain in suppression. However, as described in the response, the actual plan is for annual, single-pass electroshocking the entire upper Benewah Creek watershed just prior to brook trout spawning to target adult brook trout. Reviewers react more favorably to that approach provided that a substantial fraction (much more than half) of adults is removed each time to preclude a rapid brook trout rebound. The data provided in the response does not identify what fraction of the population of brook trout adults is removed annually. Reviewers are skeptical and note that the most recent recommendation from Montana researchers calls for at least six removal treatments of two to three electrofishing passes per treatment within two to three years, and for trampling brook trout redds. The ISRP would not view the possible outcome that such annual single-pass removal might be effective, but be needed to be continued indefinitely, as constituting "success." Reviewers suggest that by the conclusion of the 07-09 funding cycle the ability/inability of sponsors' protocol to suppress brook trout should be apparent.