Show new navigation
On
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

Assessment Summary

ISRP Assessment 2009-004-00-ISRP-20100323
Assessment Number: 2009-004-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2009-004-00 - Monitoring Recovery Trends in Key Spring Chinook Habitat Variables and Validation of Population Viability Indicators
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 7/27/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
First Round ISRP Comment:

• Objective 1, tasks 1.1 through 1.4 including the scoping, coordination, and planning tasks meet scientific review criteria • Objective 1, task 1.5 and Objectives 2 through 5 do not meet scientific review criteria based on the information provided in the proposal – response requested The ISRP requests a response to a number of questions regarding the methods used to measure habitat variables. We also request a more thorough explanation of how this study will associate improvements in habitat facilitated by restoration projects to improvements in the survival and production of various phases of spring Chinook life cycles in the upper Grande Ronde. Many of these questions are stated in 2. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods, summarized below. The study objectives and methods are ambitious, and the ISRP requests answers to our questions so we can be confident that this important project will succeed. Additional scoping planning is necessary to guide the selection of particular variables to be measured, sampling design, field installations, equipment to be purchased, and where and when it will be installed. The ISRP does not see how it can be determined what equipment should be bought without this additional scoping and planning. Equipment should not be purchased under one objective when under the same objective funding is requested for “planning to plan” on how much equipment will be eventually needed. Based on this rationale, and given that most of the planning and critical literature review has not been done, only those aspects of the objectives involving actual scoping (i.e., “planning to plan”), planning, coordination, and literature review seem appropriate at this time. Following this scoping/planning phase when the project design has been more thoroughly formulated, the appropriate needs for equipment and facilities could then be identified and requested. Tasks 1.1 through 1.4 are thus appropriate and meet scientific criteria. Tasks 1.5 and the other Objectives (2-5) do not (yet) meet scientific criteria. A clearly articulated basis should be described for the necessary work elements under those objectives.

Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: