FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21035

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The proposal and oral presentation were poor. They were disorganized and created confusion about what is asked for. The writing was careless. However, the panel believes the trap construction is important for the use of native stocks and that the broodstock in Phalon Lake represent a good start toward developing appropriate hatchery products.

This project's immediate objective is a purely technical activity. The broader, underlying reasons for it are properly expressed in the abstract's second paragraph. The overall procedure should be clearly and concisely spelled out, however—the capture of native fish from their home waters, holding them in Phalon Lake, keeping them separate (or identifiable as to origin), trapping them, spawning them, rearing them, stocking them, and so on. In other words, the relationship to other projects is poorly described both in the front-end listing and in the narrative, especially for a set of projects that is supposed to be so intricately linked. The flow of fish among projects is not well described.

The proposal background was short and weak. The stated objectives are really tasks, though they are understandable. The proposal does not provide evidence that this type of trap works under exactly the same conditions (pumped flow). When questioned after his presentation, the PI mentioned examples, but they differed from the planned trap. In later solicitations, a revised proposal with clear and focused justification, objectives, work to be done, etc. with review by WDFW would be welcome.

The underlying objective of this proposal, which is to replace hatchery rainbow trout released into Lake Roosevelt subbasin waters with native redband trout stocks, is commendable and supported strongly in the resident fish portion of the FWP. The ISRP also supports this goal. Replacing coastal rainbow trout hatchery stock with hatchery stocks derived from native redbands—if properly done—would alleviate our concerns about stocking non-native trout in the province. Those concerns are rooted in the insidious effects of hybridization on indigenous stocks.

The proposal suggests that the major reason to use the native stock is that it is less likely to entrain through Grand Coulee Dam than the present hatchery stock. This objective should be testable and is relevant to the difficult fisheries management situation in the hyper-dynamic Lake Roosevelt. Nevertheless, the more relevant longer-term reason to do the proposed work is to replace the non-native stock presently used in the hatchery program(s) with native stocks. There is a significant and rich literature that addresses the effects of hybridization on native stocks that should be described and referenced in the proposal more thoroughly. The proposal would benefit from significant development of the objectives, tasks, and methods sections, with particular emphasis on a monitoring and evaluation component in order to assess the success of the project.

With regard to the problem assumed in the proposal that genetic contamination of downstream stocks of rainbow trout might result from entrainment of the present hatchery strain now used as the main source of net pen-reared rainbows for Lake Roosevelt, we question whether this approach would really solve the supposed problem. Two elements are of significance: the propensity for downstream movement of native-derived stocks and the genetic implications, if any. Regarding downstream movement, the proposal states the Phalon Lake stock "may be less likely" to migrate downstream. In other words, it is unknown whether their tendency toward downstream movement is any less than in the present hatchery strain. And with respect to genetic implications, the proposal does not discuss what, if any genetic implications there might be if the "Phalon Lake stock" were to contaminate downstream stocks—which some of them are certain to do via entrainment. The proposal does not convince that a real problem exists, or that if it does, the method proposed will deal with it effectively.

With respect to trap design (item g), what alternatives were considered? Why was this the most advantageous type? How many cubic feet per second of water will be pumped, and what is the evidence that this amount will attract fish sufficiently and be economically justifiable?

The proposal contains unsubstantiated statements, for example (italics added):

1. In item a: "Current and future augmentation of redbands in this subbasin will ensure their persistence." The sponsor could balance this thought with consideration of genetic corruption via artificial propagation such that the target population dwindles or, when stocking eventually ends, perhaps even cannot persist.
2. In item c: "use of hatcheries will be critical to the success of providing subsistence and recreational resources and conservation of native species." Just saying so doesn't make it so. And again, what of the potential harm to native species through use of hatcheries?
3. In item e: "Broodstock replacements were and continue to be taken from the wild each year so that the genetic make-up is not compromised." It would be naïve to believe that this absolutely ensures that genetic make-up will not be compromised, and such should not be implied. Exactly what is the genetics-based plan for replenishing the Phalon Lake broodstock(s)?
4. Also in item e: "Fourty-one [sic] percent of fish caught were hatchery produced wild fish." How was 41% determined, and by whom? A reference seems to be missing. And if the fish were produced in a hatchery, then they couldn't have been wild. Hatchery-reared fish from a native strain or words to that effect would be more accurate.
5. In item f, under objectives: "The ultimate goal of this proposal is to produce a facility..." This expresses the immediate goal. The ultimate goal was stated in the abstract.
6. At end of the next paragraph: "Tributary use of these fish will be dependent on the progress of inventory and enhancement efforts." What is meant by "enhancement"? If stream habitat restoration is meant, then part of the sentence makes sense, but why would the fish care whether an inventory has been conducted before they decide to use a tributary?

Apparently to try to support the broad objective and such statements as 1, 2, and 3 (above), the sponsor provides a reference list (item h) of just two articles, neither of which, however, is referenced in the text. The first of these (Anders 1998) pertains to conservation hatcheries, not to the proposed operation's purpose of using the target stock for "recreational and subsistence fisheries," which makes it a harvest augmentation project (of the "supplementation" sort?) rather than a conservation project. The sponsor draws on nothing from the major book on the subject by Ryman and Utter (1987) and fails to include consideration of the large literature pertaining to reduced fitness caused by artificial propagation of fish, even when that propagation is intended to augment wild populations, e.g., Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999), Peery and Bjornn (1993), and Fleming et al. (1996).

In the questioning after his oral presentation, the PI revealed that some of the hatchery fish produced from Phalon Lake broodstock, originally collected from the Kettle River, are being stocked back into the Kettle River. He indicated that this is done to bolster the Kettle River native redband population which is severely diminished because WDFW angling regulations until recently led to over harvest. However, if the changed angling regulations are properly protecting the trout, and the river's habitat is suitable for the fish (as it appeared to be during our bus tour, and we weren't told otherwise), then the natural trout population should recover on its own. Augmentation stocking should not be needed—and indeed could be harmful. Besides the probable needlessness of the stocking, the possibilities should be considered that stocking will stimulate continued excessive harvest, and that stocking fish reared even for just one generation in the hatchery will decrease the reproductive fitness of the wild population into which they are mixed, hence actually depress trout abundance. See Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999) concerning the latter process.

References:

Anders, P. J. 1998. Conservation aquaculture and endangered species: can objective science prevail over risk anxiety? Fisheries 23 (11):28-31.

Fleming, I. A., B. Jonsson, M. R. Gross, and A. Lemberg. 1996. An experimental study of the reproductive behavior and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon. Journal of Applied Ecology 33. ("The results of this study agree with other evidence that suggests captive breeding and artificial culture reduce natural productive ability of fish.")

Peery, C. A., and T. C. Bjornn. 1993. Ecological effects of spring-reared spring chinook salmon on naturally produced chinook salmon. Idaho Supplementation Studies Annual Report, 1991-1992. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Ore. ("Thus, it is possible that a hatchery supplementation program may inadvertently replace the target natural population with a population having a lower survival and reproductive potential.")

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56:459-466. ("When the published studies and three studies in progress are considered collectively. . .they provide strong evidence that the fitness for natural spawning and rearing can be rapidly and substantially reduced by artificial propagation.")

Ryman, N., and F. Utter. 1987. Population genetics and fishery management. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Comment:

T1-Technically deficient.

T2- Current objectives and task section consists of objectives and tasks that lack focus. At times, the stated objectives are actually tasks. Restructure the objectives and tasks so that they are clearly defined.

T4-relies on other projects

T5-id linked to O&M in other projects T6-depending on long-term operation

T7-could be stocking redband in areas that support redband populations that are not genetically similar

Comment:

The response text continued to be poorly presented. Problems include unnumbered pages, poor logic, incompleteness (thoughts not fully developed, literature referenced in text but not shown in the references section), inaccuracy ("locally adapted kokanee stock" from Kootenai Lake, B.C.?), and needless repetition. For future proposals, we suggest using independent biological and editorial help.

The proposal should show better coordination with the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program to ensure that a monitoring and evaluation protocol will be in place to measure its merits. In this situation, scientific evaluation should be mainly concerned with measuring "entrainment" of the new fish stock, compared with the present stock, and with evaluating effects of emigrants on genetic integrity of downstream stocks. The present proposal deals with trap construction and relies on the Lake Roosevelt Fishery Evaluation Project for this measurement, but review of that proposal reveals no reference to the Phalon Lake Fish Trap. It appears that the fish trap evaluation is to depend on information collected on upstream and downstream movement of planted fish without any planned formal study design or statistical analysis related to the primary question raised in the Phalon Lake Project; i.e., are there any demonstrable advantages to using this particular stock of fish? Problems with monitoring and evaluation are apparently partly the responsibility of the Lake Roosevelt Fishery Evaluation Project, but this proposal should present evidence that adequate monitoring and evaluation will be conducted.

Comment:

Comment: