FY07-09 proposal 199404300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Columbia Upper

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: The budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 should be reduced as the the kokanee thermal experience field work will be completed. Data analysis and reporting results will continue into 2010. The out year budget will be comprised of monitoring (creel, fisheries surveys, limnological surveys and productivity data collection required for modeling updates), kokanee immigration trapping and adult returns to egg collection facilities.

Termination date: N/A
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal is substantially improved from those of the past and now is beginning to more clearly identify the long-recognized serious problem that management of the aquatic resources of Lake Roosevelt poses. Technical information regarding the scope and nature of the problem is more adequately presented here, as it is in the new Guiding Document prepared for Lake Roosevelt. There should be a continuation of this more rigorous analysis of results and potentially a redesign of the program to assess whether fishery desires are realistic given the community dynamics and physical constraints in the system. Much future improvement is needed in such critical analysis, with more targeted monitoring, and better-organized proposals. Responses are requested regarding two issues: the role of walleye, and the role of rainbow trout. Reviewers are still concerned that the scientific credibility of the project seems to be compromised by the complex mix of variables and the hope that fishery benefits for kokanee and rainbow trout can be enhanced without altering the predator populations. For walleye, harvest regulations are being modified, but it not possible to tell from the proposal the extent of such a change. To what extent is the regulation change expected to increase walleye harvest, and to what extent (if any) will predation on wild kokanee and hatchery kokanee be affected? A major deficiency of the proposal is lack of adequate discussion of walleye population dynamics and management. Walleye account for half of the harvest - so where is the management plan for walleye and other major predators? Please elaborate on the desired/anticipated walleye status for the near future. Regarding rainbow trout, the intent is to increase the level of netpen rearing by about 50%, shifting from 550,000 fish released annually to about 750,000. Benefits to anglers and fish managers clearly exist, but what are the risks? In Idaho's Lake Pend Oreille, rainbow trout are emerging as the greatest predator on kokanee. To what extent would kokanee in Lake Roosevelt be impacted by the proposed increase in rainbow trout production? The gist of the kokanee situation is that the project is trying to counteract the extremely poor results from stocking hatchery kokanee mainly by trying "fixes" of the hatchery and stocking program--and some changes in harvest regulations. None have been adequate yet, and it is far from convincing that any of those proposed will be effective. A new approach is noted in the proposal that would more closely mimic the wild kokanee population, and that appears a more defensible position. Reviewers suggest that project personnel should more vigorously investigate whether it is reasonable to try to have a kokanee fishery in the lake, other than that provided by wild (naturally reproducing) fish. All evidence to date indicates that artificial production of kokanee for this lake is futile (and probably a great waste of money) and should be stopped until the walleye population is managed appropriately (which probably cannot be done) and until lake water levels can be better managed for kokanee spawning. Reviewers welcome, but do not require, feedback on hatchery kokanee. Other comments (not needing responses): In its most recent review the ISRP stated "the Panel remains concerned that the project does not seem to focus on monitoring specific effects from other projects (other projects list this project as the M&E for their work), but rather just conduct a general fish population monitoring in the reservoir." That concern over lack of strong connections still applies. The proposers emphasize suitability of the lake's zooplankton supply for sustaining kokanee, but of what consequence is this if too few kokanee survive walleye predation to make adequate use of the zooplankton? The proposal would increase redband rainbow production and move toward an entirely triploid release of rainbow trout. These are reasonable and supportable efforts. Great improvement is seen in information transfer. It is commendable to see material being published in major scientific journals. Reliance in various places on relative abundance data is not convincing. Change in relative abundance of a fish population can occur either because that population changed in absolute abundance or because some other fish(es) did. So changes in relative abundances alone tell us little. The data should be shown in terms of absolute values, as well as the percentages. Apparently no absolute values exist and, if so, that should be stated. Table 2 shows figures on economic value, but the basis for these is not shown (data and equations or literature sources). On p 11, it is said that: "High water retention times tend to decrease entrainment of fish, allowing greater numbers to remain in the reservoir, which was observed in the creel (Table 2)." Table 2 does not show a relationship between water retention times and numbers of fish. There should be such a table or graph if the proposers are trying to make this point. A clear description of the apparently strong collaboration among stakeholders is provided, with one notable exception: the work newly proposed by the Colville Federated Tribes in the Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement (199501100), to assess and enhance deepwater kokanee spawning, is not included and does not appear to be part of this coordinated effort. Suggestions regarding proposal organization: The narrative should be reorganized according to the guidelines for proposals, and it should be condensed so as to be more to the point and less repetitive. The Technical and Scientific Background section contains much essential information but is much longer and more complicated than need be. Therefore, the main points tend to be obscured. The core technical and scientific background should be sorted out and kept in this section, whereas, most of the project history presented here should be moved (in condensed form and with summarizing tables and graphs) to the Project History Section of the proposal. This section also includes material on objectives and methods, which should be left to the section on objectives and methods. True objectives (desired outcomes) are not stated. The appearance is given that the project is seen more as a matter of performing procedures rather than obtaining results. At many points where a statement of objective should exist (i.e., preceding a series of interrelated work elements), the proposers have inserted the sentence: "Support work element." Therefore, a sense of purpose and continuity is lacking in much of this section. Some objectives show up in the text without being labeled (or really organized) as such. For example, near bottom of p 39, it says: "Data gathered will be used to determine:" and six items follow. Five of these are objectives (or at least the beginnings of objective statements). They (and others?) should have been listed up front as project objectives. Work elements should follow from objectives, not the other way around.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The proposal is substantially improved from those of the past and now is beginning to more clearly identify the serious problem that management of the aquatic resources of Lake Roosevelt poses. Technical information regarding the scope and nature of the problem is more adequately presented here, as it is in the new Guiding Document prepared for Lake Roosevelt. There should be a continuation of this more rigorous analysis of results and potentially a redesign of the program to assess whether fishery desires are realistic given the community dynamics and physical constraints in the system. Much future improvement is needed in such critical analysis, with more targeted monitoring, and better-organized proposals. Lake Roosevelt managers face a daunting political task in trying to satisfy a diversity of (sometimes conflicting) user groups, given an artificial water body containing a mix of target species and other organisms that is largely unnatural. The response brings this out and shows they are contending with the situation about as well as could be reasonably expected. Responses were requested regarding two issues: the role of walleye and the role of rainbow trout. The proposal left reviewers concerned that the scientific credibility of the project seemed to be compromised by the complex mix of variables and the hope that fishery benefits for kokanee and rainbow trout can be enhanced without altering the predator populations. The response provided some clarification regarding the issue of walleye management. The additional information about walleye size distribution was helpful. Reviewers appreciate the sponsor’ intent to make a series of gradual regulation changes (that are politically acceptable) to reduce walleye numbers and thus reduce their predation on kokanee. Lacking in the response, however, was an assessment of the extent to which the increased bag limit will affect walleye abundance. Also, reviewers repeat the comment regarding the limited value of relative abundance estimates and note that sooner or later a better estimator of predator (especially walleye) abundance will be needed. Regarding rainbow trout, the response provided evidence that expanding the rainbow trout netpen rearing project would be expected to have minimal negative effects on kokanee, and reviewers concerns are dispelled. The netpen project, that this project provides technical support to, would increase redband rainbow production and move toward an entirely triploid release of rainbow trout. These are reasonable and supportable efforts. The ISRP recommends that only female triploids be stocked, because male triploids (in mixed sex production lots) will engage in courtship behavior with native trout, possibly leading to gamete waste (from the native trout). The ISRP notes that standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocols are not yet established for using sterile female triploids to provide recreational angling in waters inhabited by native trout. Large-scale production of triploid female rainbow trout is not 100% effective. Sponsors should have the production lots they stock evaluated for the percentage of triploids, and report this as part of the project monitoring. The efficacy of avoiding hybridization between stocked and native trout is unknown when less than 100% of the stocked fish are triploids. Ongoing evaluation of hybridization in contemporaneous native trout populations will be needed in the future. Stocking triploid females to provide recreational angling in regions with highly sensitive native populations is not yet justified. See Kozfkay, J. R., J. C. Dillon, and D. J. Schill. 2006. Routine use of sterile fish in salmonid sport fisheries: are we there yet? Fisheries 31(8):392 - 401. Reviewers acknowledge their awareness of the historic and cultural significance of kokanee for sponsors in the Lake Roosevelt system. Reviewers’ perception of the kokanee situation is that the project is trying to counteract the extremely poor results from stocking hatchery kokanee mainly by trying "fixes" of the hatchery and stocking program -- and some changes in harvest regulations. None have been adequate yet, and it is far from convincing that any of those proposed will be effective. A new approach is noted in the proposal that would more closely mimic the wild kokanee population, and that appears a more defensible position. Reviewers suggest that project personnel continue to investigate whether it is reasonable to try to have a kokanee fishery in the lake proper, other than that provided by naturally reproducing fish. Evidence to date suggests (to reviewers) that, in the face of entrainment losses, artificial production of kokanee is likely futile until the walleye population is managed appropriately (which probably cannot be done) and until lake water levels can be better managed for kokanee spawning. Great improvement was seen in information transfer. It is commendable to see material being published in major scientific journals.