FY07-09 proposal 199101904

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Flathead

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: Project will continue using USFWS MMS funds for major maintenance needs.

Termination date: Not determined
Comments: Until the Hungry Horse Dam Fishery Mitigation Plan is revised, fishery objectives will remain the same and this project will continue to operate as requested.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The Creston NFH- stocking of offsite waters project is identified as part of the Hungry Horse Mitigation Plans (1991, 1993) intended to mitigate for loss of recreational fishing opportunities in the Flathead/Kootenai Basin from Hungry Horse Dam construction and operation. This ongoing project produces ~200,000 4-inch fingerlings for stocking into recreational lakes that have no aquatic linkage to the subbasin's restoration areas. The primary intent is to redirect recreational fishing pressure and harvest away from populations of conservation or restoration interest. The proposal is identified as a priority in the Flathead and Kootenai subbasin plans and meets mitigation criteria in the 1991 and 1993 mitigation plans adopted by Council. This project has been rated as fundable in recent history. It is likely still fundable for operations at Creston, but there are some basic uncertainties associated with risks v. benefits that need to be addressed. The sponsors indicate that they are not responsible for biological monitoring, that it's the responsibility of the receiving agencies. However, the project proposal needs to show how these agency’s activities are coordinated among co-managers. Given the history of this project, MDFWP and CSKT should have data that can be analyzed and summarized. If such data are not readily available, M&E needs to be strengthened. Within this context, appropriate measurable objectives need to go beyond numbers produced and released to other outcomes or endpoints. The response needs to include an outline of specific objectives stated in terms of the desired numerical benefits expected and a strategy for assessing whether these objectives are being met. It remains unclear as to why native cutthroat trout are not the entire focus rather than non-native rainbow trout. Are there creel or survey data to indicate that anglers demand or desire rainbows over cutthroat? Have there been centralized surveys of anglers? Moreover, the work element identified as "Produce Hatchery Fish (rainbows) indicates that the program will "include acquisition of genetically appropriate rainbow trout eggs..." The ISRP challenges the sponsors to define what is conceived as a "genetically appropriate" non-native species or genome. (We refer sponsors to the ISRP Retrospective Report regarding focus on native gene pools – not simply native species - for inland salmonids). Recent ISRP reviews have challenged the inclusion of non-native rainbow trout, which ultimately have been accepted because release locations are not connected to waters targeted for restoration or conservation. The basic tradeoff is defined as providing redirected recreation thus diminishing pressures or harvest elsewhere on populations of conservation or restoration concern (including bull trout). This supposition is testable through creel and survey methods (i.e., do these fisheries attract you away from more sensitive areas and populations? etc.). Even if demonstrable, it remains unclear as to why native cutthroat trout are not the entire focus rather than non-native rainbow trout. One justification for renovating Sekokini Springs has been a limitation of rearing space, is there not some opportunity to take advantage of Creston NFH for this purpose? The sponsors do not list the source(s) of the cutthroat trout. These may be identified in the HGMP, but not here. Are they a local stock or perhaps a stock requiring potentially additional ex situ refuge populations? This needs expansion.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: 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).