FY07-09 proposal 199501100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: None Selected / None Selected

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 overarching goal of this proposal is "to develop deep water spawning in Lake Roosevelt at or below the normal minimum drawdown level during the critical period from egg deposition to fry emergence." Because the proposed work is a significant departure from that in the past, it would seem more appropriate to view it as a new project. In any case, reviewers (while sharing an appreciation of the extent to which the environment has changed in the last six decades) concluded that the proposed work does not address the biological realities of the Lake Roosevelt system and has little potential to benefit kokanee. It seems implied in the proposal that Lake Roosevelt is considered an ecosystem that is functioning reasonably well - or would be if the kokanee population was restored to past abundance. However, in view of the present unnatural character of the water body (largely its water level fluctuations) and haphazard mix of species, particularly introduced piscivores, it is more realistic to speak of Lake Roosevelt as a dysfunctional water body in terms of its biota or even as a malfunctioning ecosystem. The proposal briefly summarizes the problem, and it is more thoroughly discussed in proposal 199404300 (Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation) and the Guidance Document. The overall problem seems to be a desire to establish a kokanee fishery that is not compatible with the physical and biological realities of the ecosystem. Kokanee salmon abundance is less than desired and less than it once was, but there is no clear explanation for this observation. The assumption in this proposal is that spawning habitat is limiting kokanee abundance, but the authors have not supported that belief. Reviewers suggest that kokanee may be so constrained by predation and entrainment loss that even if inducing deepwater spawning were to be successful those recruits would not survive to maturity. There is nothing in this proposal to suggest positive results might be forthcoming. No evidence is given that increasing recruitment by deepwater spawning (should it be induced) would negate the effects of predation, entrainment, etc. It is unclear how kokanee would be forced to use deepwater spawning habitat if it is located by project staff and abandon any shallow shoreline habitat that is presumably used at present. Furthermore, reviewers suggest that if deepwater spawning habitat exists, some fish are likely already using it.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: The ISRP reviewed the revised proposal, noting the withdrawal of the deepwater spawning components. The reviewers acknowledge the historical and cultural significance that kokanee hold for the project sponsors, and the reviewers support the overall thrust of the project in "preserving the natural origin kokanee stocks in Colville Tribal reservation streams (San Poil and Nespelem rivers) and other tributaries capable of supporting natural origin kokanee." Overall, project results of this decade-long endeavor have generally been thin or (as in the case of strobe lights to reduce entrainment) negative, reflecting the many difficulties faced in managing kokanee in the Lake Roosevelt system. Portions of the proposed workplan involve inventory or improvement of passage for natural origin kokanee and are found to be Fundable. Those efforts appear in the revised proposal as both of the two work elements (planning and inventory of natural origin kokanee) under Biological Objective 1, and Work Elements 1 and 2 under Biological Objective 3. The latter two work elements would determine the feasibility of providing spawner access to lower Barnaby Creek and then design and construct access structure if feasible. Reviewers maintain that there is no demonstrated scientific basis for an endorsement of the other portions of the actions proposed, namely Biological Objective 2, to supplement current kokanee stocks using artificial production, and Work Element 3 under Biological Objective 3, to conduct a feasibility study of spawning channels in the Nespelem and San Poil rivers. The latter work element is not accompanied by any discussion or supporting information and thus is Not Fundable; the "supplementation" objective is likewise viewed as Not Fundable, as discussed below. The sponsors use the term supplementation but propose to conduct the operation in a way which does not truly embody the concept, and which is basically harvest augmentation. They state that “the fundamental assumption behind the theory of supplementation is that hatchery fish returning to the spawning grounds are ‘reproductively similar’ to naturally produced fish.” The sponsors go on to say (a) they will use (instead of stream-specific fish) “an in-basin stock that is currently being reared as part of the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee Hatchery Program” and (b) the intent is to “artificially produce sufficient salmonids to supplement consistent harvest . . .” As developed elsewhere in the Columbia Basin, supplementation is proposed to increase the naturally reproducing population of a specific stream to a level at which it will sustain itself. The idea is to use the specific stream’s adults as parents for hatchery production of young, and then release those young into the same stream with the objective that some will return there to spawn and increase that stream’s natural production. Regardless of what it is called, it appears that hatchery-reared kokanee are already being released in Big Sheep Creek and perhaps other stream sites. If so, that should be reported. The ISRP does not support funding the release of hatchery-reared kokanee in Big Sheep Creek, West Fork San Poil, and Gold Fork as proposed for FY 07-09. The proposal does not adequately justify the action and does not provide enough detail for reviewers' consideration. Questions arise, such as how many wild kokanee remain in these streams? What is historic and current harvest? Why did the wild kokanee run decline? Can the causative factors be rectified? Could enough hatchery-produced kokanee be expected to survive the predator bottleneck where the streams enter the reservoir? The discussion of the barrier problem on Barnaby Creek showed that if conditions are "right" kokanee will come. The barrier is effective in most years but passable with high flows such as occurred in 1997 when 800 to 1000 fish escaped to the stream. In light of these results, any future consideration of any supplementation/harvest augmentation should include a focused discussion of the causes for what was concluded to be low production in these streams and an M&E plan that has measurable goals, with objectives and strategies that are clearly linked to the goals.