FY07-09 proposal 199500100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Pend Oreille

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The project has three major components, those for bull trout, trout habitat in tributaries, and largemouth bass propagation and habitat. Based on the proposal, all three components either are producing no benefits or are showing evidence of failure, and should not receive future funding. In its most recent review, the ISRP indicated a concern that bass culture and stocking might be having negative impacts on native species. To quote that review: "an early assessment of the bass hatchery component is needed within three years by the time of the next review cycle. In this time there should be clear evidence of whether this project is a success or a failure. If a failure, the bass hatchery component should be terminated." No evidence is put forth in the proposal to suggest that hatchery-reared bass are contributing to a fishery. Their presence continues to put salmonids in the entire region at increased risk. The trout components of the project show no indication of providing any benefit to native species. The project's habitat monitoring was not yielding useful information, and it was discontinued in 2003. However, habitat structures continue to be constructed without evidence that they are increasing native fish numbers. Brook trout removal by electrofishing has been done repeatedly for more than five years at the same locations yet there is no indication that enough brook trout are being removed to provide a benefit for native fish. Chemical treatment to remove brook trout, an important task that previously appeared as part of this project, is now proposed by the Kalispel Tribe under proposal 2007149000. All in all, there is no reason to continue these efforts.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: The project has three major components: coordinate bull trout restoration, manage trout habitat and non-native trout in tributaries, and propagate largemouth bass. Based on the proposal, the ISRP felt in its preliminary review that all components either were producing no benefits or were showing evidence of failure, and should not receive future funding. However, material furnished in the response satisfactorily addressed many of those concerns, and the ISRP recommends Fundable for the trout components (Objectives 1, 3, and 4) and Fundable in Part for the largemouth bass component (Objective 2) to monitor and evaluate the bass already reared and released. The ISRP does not recommend further rearing and release of largemouth bass. The primary basis for the recommended reduction of the project is the serious potential for deleterious interactions between the stocked largemouth bass and native aquatic species. This potential is not restricted to this location, but exists throughout the Columbia River Basin, as a result of natural migration and angler-assisted translocations. Secondary considerations are the inconsistent goals of improving habitat for native trout and removal of non-native brook trout while simultaneously stocking large-mouth bass, and a lack of evidence supplied in the proposal or response, that the bass stocking is efficacious. The ISRP has reviewed the largemouth bass supplementation for FY 98, 99, 00, the Provincial Review (01), and a Three-Step Review. The initial reviews (FY 98, 99, and 00) found the proposal inadequate (98) or recommended no bass stocking (99), emphasizing the problem of conflicting program goals – stocking bass while removing non-native trout and attempting to restore native trout habitat. In the Provincial (01 – 03) and Three Step reviews the ISRP focused on the lack of evidence that a bass hatchery could be successful and the need for a strong experimental design. This FY 07-9 recommendation is consistent with the earliest ISRP reviews, and with the ISRP’s understanding of the guidance for fish substitution in the Council’s program. The current panel understands that this recommendation is more conservative than the Provincial and Three-Step Review. In reaching its conclusion, the ISRP gave consideration to the preexisting introduced species in the Pend Oreille River system, but concluded in the end that the action is inherently in conflict with not only other Fish and Wildlife Program goals and guidance, but also with good conservation principles in general. Reviews evaluating aquatic biodiversity issues have concluded that interactions with exotic species are perhaps even more of a cause of the loss of diversity than habitat alteration (degradation). Largemouth bass have been introduced in various places in the Columbia River Basin and have established reproducing populations. These introductions would likely not pass scrutiny at this time, and would not now form a basis for actively engaging in the rearing and release of exotic species into open waters. There is increasing awareness throughout the western U.S. and around the world of the negative impact of largemouth bass outside their native range. Projects such as this pose risks well beyond their immediate areas, as bass are particularly good at living in buckets while being moved for 50 miles. Largemouth bass are adapting to cooler temperatures; once thought to become inactive below 50 degrees F, they have recently been found to actively travel and feed in ice-covered water bodies. In response to the ISRP request for information on the success of the largemouth bass stocking, the response argues that more time is needed: "the hatchery went through a Three-Step review process in 2002 for the construction of 3 rearing ponds. Until these ponds were built, the hatchery program was unable to achieve the goals of the hatchery (produce 100,000 largemouth bass). In 2003, the ponds were first used, which has dramatically increased the numbers of bass produced and helped to address program goals. Unfortunately, these fish will not be recruited into the fishery for several more years." Reviewers believe this period of time is easily long enough for bass (now 3+years old) to have reached the creel. There should be information available. In any case, stocking additional largemouth bass is not needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the initial stocking program, and continued stocking may in fact help establish an unwanted non-native species. Regarding the trout and trout habitat activities, fencing to exclude livestock is continuing and engineered large woody structures are being placed. In the plan for revised and improved M&E on the habitat work, the intent is to make population estimates in three randomly selected 50-meter sections of stream and in one 100-m section. The amount of sampling should probably be more intense in order to get valid results. There should be more sections sampled, and each section should be at least 100 m long. The plan includes dividing the stream into 50-m reference sections, which is probably a very good idea for physical monitoring. For the electrofishing, adjacent 50-m sections can be combined. The sponsors should obtain the advice of a biostatistician in further designing the M&E data collection and analysis. The response material was clear and focused in regard to Objective 3 (manage nonnative fish species). Reviewers agree the brook trout suppression by electrofishing should proceed, but on a strict experimental basis while results are evaluated over the next three years, e.g., the cutthroat trout response to the completed partial brook trout removal by electrofishing in Mineral and Saucon creeks. Reviewers anticipate the surviving brook trout will increase in numbers much faster than will cutthroat trout, but hope they are incorrect. The sponsors should plan to publish results in a scientific journal.