View the details of the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) assessment for this project as part of the FY07-09 Solicitation Review.
Assessment Number: | 1991-019-04-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 1991-019-04 - Hungry Horse Mitigation-Creston Hatchery |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
The ISRP carefully considered this longstanding project for consistency with Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) and for scientific rigor and justification. The ISRP concluded that the project's offsite mitigation approach is consistent with FWP although the sponsors - or their partners - should more thoroughly address how off-site release of produced non-native trout fingerlings redirects pressure on native trout populations. Other mitigation proposals in the subbasin indicate that hybridization between native westslope cutthroat and introduced rainbow trout is a pervasive problem -- the potential for antagonism between these mitigation activities needs to diminish.
Ultimately, the response did not truly address two issues and for this reason we recommend that funding carry "qualification." First, the sponsors should more tangibly demonstrate coordination with receiving agencies and that the production is supported as a priority mitigation program in the subbasin by MFWP and CSKT. Such demonstrated support, such as letters of support, should indicate MFWP and CSKT commitment to monitoring the biological or angler responses to these releases. It is insufficient for Creston NFH to limit their responsibilities solely to production and delegate monitoring responsibilities without some institutional agreement. Second, the questions regarding production of westslope cutthroat trout (the native) versus rainbow trout (a non-native) should be addressed by the co-managers. The sponsors answered the question regarding westslope cutthroat in context of the releases in the current waters rather than where the potential needs might be elsewhere in the subbasin (i.e., a need justifying the potential development of the Sekokini Springs facility). |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Proponent Response: | |
|