FY07-09 proposal 200724600

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: 2/28/2011
Comments: This project is a four year project that is proposed to start 1 January, 2007, and end 28 February, 2011.

Final deliverables: All data including raw and summarized information from electrofishing surveys, trap operation and maintenance, trap testing, individual fish metrics, GIS maps, and statistical analysis. Final technical report and scientific papers.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors propose a project to pass bull trout over Albeni Falls Dam, Pend Oreille River, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a trap to collect upstream-migrating bull trout adults for this. Reviewers see this proposal as being out of phase. According to the proposal, the USFWS 2000 Biological Opinion directed the action agencies to evaluate the feasibility of restoring passage at Albeni Falls Dam, and those agencies are to begin evaluating the associated costs and issues. The agencies’ plan should contrast all options for solving the bull trout dam passage problem. Thus, absent such an evaluation, it is premature to fund the proposed work at the present time. Consideration of whether to fund the proposed action should be delayed until the passage plan is done, and a clear outline of the research can be developed and an implementation strategy adopted. The proposal is data rich but is excessively long and not convincingly written. The project purpose is, in practical terms, the development of the trap. Piggybacked on that are provisions for research, much of it scientifically interesting but having little pertinence to aquatic resource recovery in the basin. In future proposals, the research aspect should be pared back to essentials for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). One difficulty reviewers have with the project rationale is the assumption that all the individual tributaries are each a demographically independent population and at risk for inbreeding depression. Most critical is the assumption that the return of a few individuals that originated from these streams is critically important genetically to prevent extirpation. The authors note that within tributary analysis typically reveals little genetic variation, and that between tributary variation is greater. If the returning (adfluvial) adults were from a different stream and required to mix things up to prevent inbreeding it would be a more convincing argument. As it stands now, the argument should be based on demographic collapse, not genetic collapse. So, there is a question whether short-term extirpation can be remedied by this action. The authors do not provide a compelling quantitative presentation of a viability assessment to support that main thesis. Biologic and economic cost-effectiveness of the proposed project seem questionable to reviewers. The proposal seems to imply that every bull trout is so valuable to the system’s population (ESU?) that each fish that passes downstream over or through the dam and survives to maturity needs to be moved back above the dam. Is this really so? The proposal states that, unless gene flow between populations is more than thought, only 3 of the 18 spawning tributaries above the dam probably have an adequate number of spawners (100 or more) to maintain proper genetic characteristics of their populations. Based on the proposal’s table showing estimated spawner population in each tributary, it is evident that passing the hoped-for 27 to 40 adult bull trout per year over the dam is unlikely to boost more than one or two (and probably not any) of the 15 needy populations into the adequate-spawner category. It might be worth trying, however, on the chance that many more adults are captured below the dam than anticipated—and that the project budget can be greatly reduced. On a dollars-per-spawner-gained basis, the proposal looks impractical as presently written. A three-year budget of $1.55 million for passing an anticipated maximum of 120 bull trout (40 per year) over the dam amounts to $12,900 per fish. Other dams in the Columbia Basin pose similar problems for bull trout and other native resident trout species – should trap and haul be implemented there also? Reviewers note two additional complications. One is that bull trout passage over other dams (PUD and Avista owned) is involved in the system, so a more jointly supported solution than proposed seems appropriate. Secondly, the operation of a largemouth bass hatchery on the lower Pend Oreille River (BPA Project 199500100) by the proponents of this proposal would seem to be at odds with bull trout recovery. A more thorough analysis of the bull trout situation is needed.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: Fundable to conduct a pilot test of the electrofishing approach, with subsequent electrofishing and trap and haul of bull trout around Albeni Falls Dam contingent on the success of that pilot test. Not Fundable to conduct a genetic rapid assessment of tributary assignment or radio-tagging and tracking of spawning bull trout. This project proposed collecting bull trout by electrofishing and trapping below Albeni Falls Dam, and then transporting the fish for release above this or other upstream, impassable dams to contribute to depleted spawning populations. In the preliminary review the ISRP questioned whether the project was timed appropriately since the sponsors indicated the dam operators were conducting a feasibility study of options to pass bull trout around Albeni Falls Dam. The ISRP also had several concerns about the genetic assessment of the likely spawning tributary of the migrants captured below Albeni Falls Dam, and the evaluation of migration by tracking radio-tagged fish. In response the sponsors clarified that the feasibility studies were complete, and that trap and haul was one option being considered by the dam operators and regulators. The sponsors suggested that the trap and haul should begin immediately, providing near-term benefits to fish, while the managers determine the long-term solution. The ISRP found the argument convincing. Albeni Falls Dam is a major bull trout migration barrier and therefore impacts fluvial and adfluvial populations. Passage is needed to preserve these two life histories. The problem is similar to bull trout passage difficulties in the Lower Clark Fork River. So, is this potentially the right (or at least a workable) approach? Is it designed to at least figure this out? The short answer is yes for the first, but no for the second. The ISRP believes that at this time the idea of volitional migration following assisted dam passage is sufficient without the genetic assignment to natal streams coupled with radio-telemetry. That each population sampled above the dam has a differing constellation of msDNA alleles is not improbable. In fact, it would be surprising if it were not the case given the population sizes and the high variation in msDNA. It is not clear to the ISRP whether the genetic samples and assignment methods are sophisticated enough to assign the natal river with sufficient accuracy (what level is this accuracy set at?) to warrant this kind of approach and not create a mis-assignment error that is detrimental to the population. Detrimental because the fish were passed above more than one dam owing to the natal stream assignment. Collecting bull trout below the dam is an equipment (floating trap [screw trap?]) and labor (60 + hours of electrofishing) intensive effort. Work on the Lower Clark Fork suggests it can be accomplished. Ultimately, it is necessary to demonstrate that it has helped the population(s). Is the population stabilized? Is it growing? Is it still shrinking? And which of the tributary populations are contributing (or failing to contribute) to improved abundance. That fish can be collected, genotyped, and tracked to a spawning location is an interesting observation, but not really a biological end-point. In the proposal there are also related trap improvement efforts (cold water, natal stream water) to be tested. Pheromone release has worked for other adfluvial species. The sponsors could begin by testing electrofishing for one year to determine if the effort yields 40 + adults. If that is successful then initiate the trapping trials. Monitoring needs to determine if there are increases to population sizes in the tributaries and increases in down stream migrants, regardless of where they spawned.