Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1997-004-00 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1997-004-00 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Project Number:
1997-004-00
Title:
Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Summary:
The Resident Fish Stock Status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project, commonly referred to as the Joint Stock Assessment Project (JSAP), is a management tool that uses ecosystem principles to manage fish assemblages in altered environments existing in the Columbia River System above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (blocked area). The fish assemblage existing today in the blocked area is drastically different than that prior to hydroelectric development, consisting of 39 known resident species, most of which are non-native. Anadromous fish have been extirpated due to the construction of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. The JSAP (NWPPC 1994 program measure 10.8B.26) is designed and guided jointly by fisheries managers in the blocked area employing a three-phase approach which will enhance fisheries resources by identifying data gaps, filling data gaps with research, and implementing management recommendations based on research results.
Quantitative data on current habitat conditions, limiting factors, species composition, distribution, abundance, and life history remain lacking in many watersheds in the blocked area. The focus of the JSAP since 1999 has been to fill these data gaps using standardized methodologies, which will continue through this funding cycle. Specific projects proposed include baseline tributary fish and habitat assessments in the Priest Lake, middle Lake Roosevelt, and Colville watersheds, standardized burbot stock assessments of Bead and Sullivan lakes, baseline fish population assessments of the Middle Spokane River and lakes in the Pend Oreille and Priest Lake watersheds, determine the stock status, life histories, movements, and habitat use of redband trout in the upper Spokane and Little Spokane river watersheds, and developing and implementing northern pike management recommendations based on recent research results. Data collected by and acquired through this project is stored in the JSAP Unified Database (UDB). The synthesis of all available fish distribution, abundance, stocking history, habitat, and water quality data into one central repository provides managers the best available science with which to base management recommendations
For the purpose of avoiding redundancy, please see FY 2007-2009 F&W Project Solicitation, Section 10, Narrative, Project ID: 199700400, for Technical and/or scientific background, Rationale and significance to regional programs, Relationships to other projects, Project History (for ongoing projects), and Proposal biological objectives, work elements , and methods for this project.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Kalispel Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1997
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Columbia Upper 100.00%
Purpose:
Hydrosystem
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Burbot
Carp, Common
Catfish
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Other Anadromous
Other Resident
Perch, Yellow
Pike, Northern
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $295,000 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord Review (Kalispel MOA) 07/12/2012
FY2020 Expense $7,375 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Kalispel Tribe (correction to Kalispel MOA-Attachment A) 07/12/2012
FY2020 Expense $64,429 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord project COLA (Kalispel MOA) 07/13/2012
FY2020 Expense $1,611 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord project COLA (Kalispel MOA) 07/13/2012
FY2020 Expense $34,055 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Accord Budget transfers (Kalispel) 10/18/2018 10/19/2018
FY2020 Expense $66,466 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Accord Budget transfers (Kalispel) 10/18/2018 10/19/2018
FY2020 Expense $3,203 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Accord Budget transfers (Kalispel) 10/18/2018 10/19/2018
FY2020 Expense $377,400 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $55,000 To: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord Transfers - Kalispel - 11/14/19 11/14/2019
FY2020 Expense $1,456 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel PIT Tags 04/03/2020
FY2021 Expense $295,000 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord Review (Kalispel MOA) 07/12/2012
FY2021 Expense $7,375 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Kalispel Tribe (correction to Kalispel MOA-Attachment A) 07/12/2012
FY2021 Expense $73,415 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord project COLA (Kalispel MOA) 07/13/2012
FY2021 Expense $1,835 From: Fish Accord - Kalispel Fish Accord project COLA (Kalispel MOA) 07/13/2012
FY2021 Expense $5,643 To: Fish Accord - Kalispel Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, CTUIR, KT) 1/8/16 01/11/2016
FY2021 Expense $377,400 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 (Draft)
2019 $142,710 14%
2018 $141,593 12%
2017 $106,090 13%
2016 $125,538 15%
2015 $107,133 12%
2014 $181,003 22%
2013 $114,877 13%
2012 $119,351 15%
2011 $121,390 14%
2010
2009 $48,514 8%
2008 $58,993 9%
2007 $90,923 13%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
375 REL 1 SOW Kalispel Tribe 1997-004-00 RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Terminated $347,326 3/1/2000 - 2/28/2001
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
375 REL 2 SOW Kalispel Tribe 1997-004-00 RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Terminated $485,000 3/1/2001 - 3/1/2002
4572 SOW Kalispel Tribe 1997-004-00 RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Terminated $63,691 4/12/2001 - 12/20/2002
BPA-005095 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Active $3,504 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005717 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Active $4,303 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006382 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph & Grand Coulee Active $3,977 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007025 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Active $1,509 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-010272 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Active $774 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
BPA-010860 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Active $0 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
73548 REL 51 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1997-004-00 EXP CCT UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Issued $76,000 3/1/2019 - 2/29/2020
BPA-011597 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags Active $1,943 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74488 REL 23 SOW Kalispel Tribe 1997-004-00 EXP KALISPEL UPPER COLUMBIA RES FISH STOCK STATUS Issued $417,139 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
84642 SOW Spokane Tribe 1997-004-00 EXP STOI UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Issued $75,000 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
73548 REL 79 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1997-004-00 EXP CCT UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Issued $76,000 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
74314 REL 92 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997-004-00 EXP WDFW UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Issued $225,917 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
BPA-012073 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 PIT Tags Active $0 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
CR-343344 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1997-004-00 EXP CCT UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Pending $76,000 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022
CR-343346 SOW Spokane Tribe 1997-004-00 EXP STOI UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Pending $75,000 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022
CR-343397 SOW Kalispel Tribe 1997-004-00 EXP KALISPELUPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Pending $371,982 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022
CR-343398 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997-004-00 EXP WDFW UPPER COLUMBIA RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Pending $226,400 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):72
Completed:38
On time:38
Status Reports
Completed:224
On time:186
Avg Days Early:3

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4619 21744, 26360, 31471, 37202, 41269, 45840, 51363, 55883, 60320, 64060, 68052, 71839, 75397, 74488 REL 3, 74488 REL 14, 74488 REL 23 1997-004-00 RESIDENT FISH STOCK STATUS Kalispel Tribe 12/1996 12/1996 Pending 62 241 13 0 51 305 83.28% 0
31281 36878, 41393, 46518, 51122, 55596, 60007, 63569, 67820, 71560, 73548 REL 2, 73548 REL 18, 73548 REL 51, 73548 REL 79 1997-004-00 EXP JOINT STOCK ASSESSMENT COLVILLE TRIBE Colville Confederated Tribes 03/2007 03/2007 Pending 54 61 3 0 2 66 96.97% 0
32169 37022, 41077, 45869, 51409, 56011, 60274, 64302, 67821, 71452, 75427, 78056, 81264, 84642 1997-004-00 EXP JOINT STOCK ASSESSMENT SPOKANE TRIBE Spokane Tribe 03/2007 03/2007 Pending 54 119 8 0 1 128 99.22% 0
31167 37028, 41176, 46284, 52091, 56424, 61260, 64924, 68434, 71857, 74970, 74314 REL 26, 74314 REL 58, 74314 REL 92 1997-004-00 EXP JOINT STOCK ASSESSMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 03/2007 03/2007 Pending 54 165 13 0 14 192 92.71% 0
BPA-005095 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005717 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006382 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007025 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010272 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010860 PIT Tags - Resident Fish above Chief Joe & Grand Coulee Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-011597 FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 224 586 37 0 68 691 90.16% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-004-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1997-004-00 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1997-004-00
Completed Date: 4/16/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal is very complex, and includes three major efforts involving different species, different physical settings, and different problems. It is difficult for an outside reviewer, administrator, or new project participant to easily understand its components. To make these organizational problems worse, another project (the Pend Oreille Non-native Fish Suppression Project 200714900 of the Kalispel Tribe) conducts activities that are closely related.

(1)   Lake trout in the Priest and Upper Priest lakes

·         The Resident Fish Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project (199700400) proposes to perform preliminary work associated with lake trout removals in Priest Lake (e.g. age structure, identify spawning sites).

·         The Pend Oreille Nonnative Fish Suppression Project proposes to continue ongoing netting efforts in Upper Priest Lake and the Thorofare to maintain the minimum numbers of bull trout existing in the Upper Priest Lake watershed.

(2)   Northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir

·         The Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Project (199700400) will monitor the effectiveness of mechanical removal and other measures by annually monitoring the northern pike population and periodically monitoring the resident warmwater fishery with standardized warmwater fish surveys.

·         Mechanical removal of pike will be implemented through the Pend Oreille Non-native Fish Suppression Project.

The response showed considerable effort by the sponsors and clarified several items. The organization of the response into program-by-program sections was helpful.

The JSAP and SPIN components are essentially long-term monitoring programs that provide community and trend indexing. The benefit of such long-term data is that they provide an opportunity to probe the database as questions arise (not necessarily ones that were on the minds of the sponsors when the project was started). Such probing ultimately helps framing (range-finding) of more exact hypotheses rather than a robust approach to test hypotheses. Such tests often require additional or independent tests for such hypotheses.

Redband

Overall the response clarifies many areas but fails to show evidence of critical thinking that reviewers felt would be advantageous at this point in time. The sponsors declined the ISRP's request that they attempt to develop testable hypotheses.

Box Canyon

Overall, the sponsors provided an adequate response and one that shows evidence of some critical thinking. There was good incorporation of results from other studies. The staff seem to be doing the best possible to base efforts on catch per unit effort data in the absence of abundance estimates.

The sponsors plan on engaging a biometrician to refine the statistical basis for the population estimate work, and the ISRP concurs with that approach.

Priest Lake

The response was complete and adequately addressed reviewers' queries.

The ISRP recommends that non-native fish control be examined in the context of a Columbia River Basin discussion of current conditions for all predators and specific control measures applicable to non-native fish. This discussion could take place at a Columbia River Basin Science-Policy forum.

Redband trout

See qualifications.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - evaluation of limiting factors
During the contracting process, the sponsors should develop a concise evaluation of what they consider the primary limiting factors, in addition to fish harvest. Predation, habitat disruption, and food requirements are discussed, and these are reasonable suggestions but need additional justification. Some target locations for specific studies are mentioned. The sponsors are encouraged to develop proposals or engage other stakeholders to participate in joint studies on the topics.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2 - prevent high entrainment
If entrainment is found to be a significant loss factor for hatchery triploid rainbow trout from Lake Roosevelt, the sponsors need to develop a project, with appropriate partners, addressing how to prevent high entrainment. This part of the ISRP's question was not answered during the response process.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3 - statistical justification
A statistical justification for the 10% PIT tagging rate should be provided during the contracting process. Apparently the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program (LRFEP) used a similar rate for Floy tagging, but it is not clear what their tagging program was for. If it was investigating wild-hatchery trout interactions, the sponsors should discuss how effective the latter rate was for the particular study LRFEP conducted.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

After careful consideration, reviewers are coming to think that many of our concerns are attributable to the sheer expanse of this proposal and especially how format requirements fragment the "story lines." It is not possible for the sponsors of one of the three separate programs included here (or for reviewers) to follow through from beginning to end (statement of problem, objectives, methods, etc.) without being "interrupted" by descriptions of the other programs. The smaller, less complex programs (Box Canyon and Priest Lake) are less affected than is the redband trout program.

That said, there are a number of items that need to be clarified in a response. Other comments, rhetorical questions, and suggestions are included as constructive feedback for sponsors. The response should address:

Redband trout

  1. Reviewers see indications that work may be time-critical, and there is a risk that some of the populations might dwindle to very low levels before very many iterations (funding cycles) of the study transpire. If so, it is important that the upcoming efforts not merely "fill data gaps" but instead examine critical hypotheses and identify bottlenecks, especially those that can be eliminated by management. The current proposal lacks such content. A response should focus the proposed work in this context by better addressing imminent threats such as over-harvest, a predator gauntlet, or inadequate habitat at a specific life stage. Hypotheses should be framed where possible and descriptions of where the work should best be done, that is identifying what study locations might yield the most powerful information. A map or maps should be included. Please incorporate relevant results from completed studies, such as the Upper Spokane River 2007-09 work, when possible. Include a discussion of what are targets for sustainable levels of redband harvest, and what are current harvest levels.

Reviewers are not requesting a re-design of the redband trout proposal. If the material requested suggests that refinement of objectives and deliverables would strengthen the program, those should be noted.

  1. A more complete justification is needed for the entrainment objective (#3). The proposal states "entrainment of hatchery triploid rainbow trout from Lake Roosevelt should be assessed in order to manage the subsistence and recreational salmonid fishery." Reviewers are not persuaded by that statement unless it is clarified to indicate just how such knowledge would be used. How might high entrainment be preventable?

  2. For DELV 10: Mark and release hatchery coastal rainbow trout into Lake Roosevelt to evaluate negative interactions with wild redband trout during spawning – A rationale for a 10% tagging rate to identify if hatchery fish are interacting with wild redbands on the spawning grounds in Lake Roosevelt and upper Columbia River tributaries is given but is it scientifically defensible? Further details are also needed on the assumed negative impact of wild red band trout spawning together with hatchery rainbow.

  3. For DELV-12: Estimate abundance of redband trout in the lower Spokane River – details are needed on the mark-recapture model to be used. An unbiased estimate is promised.

Box Canyon

  1. A description is requested of why the data are needed and how they will be used to continue to adaptively manage pike and other species. Based on the sponsor's fairly extensive knowledge of the situation, what hypotheses can be tested, or indeed, need to be tested? One might be whether 55% annual exploitation of pike is adequate. What are the desired population targets in terms of species size and abundance?

  2. This project will monitor the effectiveness of pike management measures by annually monitoring the northern pike population with Spring Pike Index Netting (SPIN) survey and periodically monitoring the resident warmwater fishery with standardized warmwater fish surveys (Bonar et al. 2000) to detect trends in abundance and population characteristics as a response to removal efforts. Temporal aspects of this monitoring program should be described in more detail. Periodic monitoring is not a sufficient description. What is the statistical basis for the work?

  3. For DELV-14: Estimate abundance of northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir – What is the statistical basis for deciding that the target sample size for marked and recaptured fish is 10% of the population?

Priest Lake

DELV 19-21 concern lake trout ecology in Upper Priest Lake and Priest Lake – The sponsors state “Lake trout suppression in Upper Priest Lake removes approximately 80% of the population annually” and “In anticipation of a largescale effort to reduce the abundance, management needs accurate population estimates to model the effort required to crash the population through increased angler harvest and mechanical suppression.” Further details are needed on the proposed model that provides the rationale for this data need. How does this strategy/model compare with other lake trout suppression models, for example suppression models proposed for Flathead Lake?

The ISRP recommends that non-native fish control be examined in the context of a Columbia River Basin discussion of current conditions for all predators and specific control measures applicable to non-native fish. This discussion could take place at a CRB Science-Policy forum.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The JSAP - Joint Stock Assessment Project - is designed and guided jointly by fisheries managers in the blocked area above Chief Joseph Dam including the Kalispel Tribe, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Colville Confederated Tribes, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project's purpose is to provide research, monitoring and evaluation (RME) for some 11 focal species by providing long-term trend and spatially extensive data that are nominally used to inform management and policy decisions. The Joint Stock Assessment Project is clearly very important for monitoring the population dynamics of resident fish in the blocked area. The stock assessment results on the six key focal species (rainbow trout, lake trout, interior redband trout, bull trout, northern pike, and westslope cutthroat trout) are significant to at least eight regional programs.

Although the technical background in the proposal is lengthy and somewhat disjointed, the information provided is comprehensive and important to the sponsors' rationale. Relationships with other projects are well developed and collaboration with other agencies is one of this project’s strong suits.

The sponsors should be complimented for their thorough coverage of the literature outside the Columbia River Basin. However, they did not list citations past the letter “r” and therefore some crucial citations, for example those to Vashro concerning northern pike introductions, cannot be examined.

For the proposed funding period, there are eight objectives that involve several very different water bodies and several very different species. Seven are for active management/M&E, of which three are redband trout and Lake Roosevelt related, two are for Box Canyon pike and other species, and one is for lake trout in the Priest Lake system. One objective is for data management by CCT for the Kalispel Tribe. In essence this proposal is three proposals rolled into one proposal with 22 deliverables. This overall proposal appears to have been very difficult to prepare, and it was a challenge to review.

For redband, there is a summary of challenges and efforts to date, but these appear to be largely restricted to Lake Roosevelt proper. For proposed work there are four objectives: to manage subsistence and recreational harvest of stocks of wild redband trout in Lake Roosevelt and the upper Columbia River, to minimize impacts of the Lake Roosevelt hatchery rainbow trout program on wild redband trout, to assess entrainment of hatchery triploid rainbow trout from Lake Roosevelt, and to assess the redband trout population in a portion of the lower Spokane River. From fairly detailed and useful descriptions of redband status in the Problem Statement and from the brief three paragraph description of Accomplishments, much of the proposed work is justified, especially the work to minimize impacts (Obj 2). The least explained and justified objective is #3, assessing entrainment. The proposal states "entrainment of hatchery triploid rainbow trout from Lake Roosevelt should be assessed in order to manage the subsistence and recreational salmonid fishery." Reviewers request clarification that indicates just how such knowledge would be used. How might high entrainment be preventable?

For Box Canyon, the two objectives (conduct an annual status assessment of pike and an assessment of warmwater species every third year) are really deliverables, and are described in good detail in the deliverables section. What is needed is a description of why the data are needed and how the data will be used to continue to adaptively manage pike and other species. Based on the sponsor's fairly extensive knowledge of the situation, what hypotheses can, or need to, be tested? One hypothesis might be whether 55% annual exploitation of pike is adequate. What are the desired population targets in terms of species size and abundance?

Specific comments on individual objectives:

  • OBJ-1: Manage subsistence and recreational harvest of stocks of wild redband trout in Lake Roosevelt and the upper Columbia River

There are 11 deliverables in support of this objective. They all seem to employ “standard” population dynamics and “habitat limitation” techniques. What appear to be missing are targets for sustainable harvest.

  • OBJ-2: Minimize impacts of the Lake Roosevelt hatchery rainbow trout program on wild redband trout

A marking program is described as a deliverable in support of this objective. As per a comment on deliverables below, further details are needed on how the impacts will be assessed.

  • OBJ-3: Assess entrainment of hatchery triploid rainbow trout from Lake Roosevelt

A PIT tag recovery program is described as a deliverable in support of this objective.

  • OBJ-4: Assess the redband trout population in the lower Spokane River from Spokane Falls to TJ Meenach Bridge

The objective is to develop a baseline level of the population, with 2 deliverables of population dynamics data. This is a worthy goal and somewhat surprising that it has not been done before.

  • OBJ-5: Monitor the abundance and population structure of northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir, Pend Oreille River, Washington

Deliverables supporting this objective are to provide data on abundance and population structure in separate “packages”. This is a key objective for efforts at northern pike suppression. See comments below on the deliverables.

  • OBJ-6: Monitor the abundance and population structure of resident fish in Box Canyon Reservoir, Pend Oreille River, Washington

The deliverable supporting this objective is to provide data on abundance and population structure in one “package.” This is a key objective for efforts at northern pike suppression. See comments below on the deliverables.

Concerning Objectives 5 and 6, the proposal would be improved by a description of the management plan for Box Canyon Reservoir, if there is one, and if not a management plan should be written.

  • OBJ-7: Assess the lake trout population in Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake

There are three deliverables mentioned in support of this objective. Population assessments are directed to key management questions. See comment below regarding deliverables.

  • OBJ-8: Compile, digitize, and submit Colville Confederated Tribes resident fish data to regional databases

The objective is supported by one deliverable. The work is key to data management, but it is not clear how data are reported, stored, and synthesized. This is an important issue that should be addressed.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The sponsors have apparently been hampered by lack of personnel to complete a number of project deliverables in the past, notably reports on progress, but apparently now have staff to complete these assignments. Reporting of data in reports and especially journals has been slower than anticipated. The ISRP also mentioned this issue in the last round of reviews.

The primary description of results included focused on northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir. A detailed, well laid out description was provided to tell the northern pike (NP) story from when they were first noticed in the mid 1980s to the development of a multimillion dollar fishery today. Adaptive changes in management are described. Results included a suite of descriptive analyses on size, diet, movement, catch rates, etc. These analyses have informed management options and decisions for eradication. The sponsors state, “To assess the feasibility of mechanical suppression with gill nets to increase mortality, KNRD and WDFW initiated a pilot removal project in 2011. Intensive gillnetting of sloughs and backwaters when pike are congregated for spawning has been demonstrated to be an efficient method for rapidly reducing their abundance in river systems (Ivey et al. 2011)” and concluded “that intensively netting NP in sloughs and backwaters from ice off through the spring freshet could drastically reduce the abundance of NP in Box Canyon Reservoir.” The latter statement is apparently based on only one year (2011) of data. It would be helpful to find out if the Ivey et al. project, conducted in Alaska, resulted in long term reduction of the population or only short term decrease in population size.

Monitoring and research on westslope cutthroat trout below Albeni Falls dam has indicated life-history differences among fluvial and resident populations based on tagging analyses. The data from those analyses inform managers about the effects of the dam and habitat preferences and behavioral variation.

Work on redband trout and burbot was described with little discussion of how the information informed management. For redbands, three paragraphs on accomplishments emphasize the development of "standardized methods" and pilot projects. A three-year population study was to be done in the Upper Spokane River in 2007-09, but virtually no results are given.

For Priest Lake, efforts to date were clearly described. The sole objective is to assess the lake trout population in both lakes. The sponsors have been involved in the adaptive management measures for lake trout management in Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake. Their work has been influential in the shift from a strategy of managing the lakes separately to a more realistic system of managing them together as one ecosystem unit, and as well promoting native fish.

 The revision of the major geospatial database for the project is a concern. An earlier database and associated software has been abandoned and a new one constructed. It would be helpful to obtain further details on the latter. The new Geospatial Enabled Database Management System (GEDMS) could not be accessed using the links provided in the proposal.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The project has broad linkages to nearly all efforts in the Columbia River Basin above Chief Joseph dam. The project sponsors describe these linkages sufficiently.

Not much description is included for climate change as an emerging limiting factor, but more extensive are descriptions of problematic non-native species such as northern pike and lake trout. Not all non-natives are viewed as undesirable in part because of the loss of connection with downriver and ocean habitats and modification of the ecosystem in the blocked areas.

The proposal gives a useful discussion of the possible increased effects of entrainment at Albeni Falls dam on population dynamics of native and non-native resident fish.

RME: This project will monitor the effectiveness of control measures by annually monitoring the northern pike population with Spring Pike Index Netting (SPIN) survey and periodically monitoring the resident warmwater fishery with standardized warmwater fish surveys (Bonar et al. 2000) to detect trends in abundance and population characteristics as a response to removal efforts. Temporal aspects of this monitoring program should be described in more detail. Periodic monitoring is not a sufficient description. What is the statistical basis for the work?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables and work elements generally relate appropriately to the objectives. This proposal has one of the more extensive sections relating specific protocols to deliverables of the proposals reviewed. The sponsors also have done a fairly good job in incorporating previous ISRP comments and recommendations into this proposal.

There are 15 deliverables for proposed redband work. Fortunately these are nicely fitted into the relevant objectives or this would have been a mess. Proposal authors are to be congratulated for doing a good job working with a proposal format that is challenging for a large effort with diverse components. 

The number of fish to be PIT tagged should be justified in terms of the deliverables that depend on pit tagging. Justification that the number of fish PIT tagged is sufficient, but not excessive, for the relevant deliverables should be provided. Will the number of redband trout detected be adequate to satisfy project objectives?

DELV-9: Provide the stock assessment data on redband trout in the lower Spokane River, Lake Roosevelt and upper Columbia River to managers to inform decisions – Further details are needed on the models used, e.g., the Fisheries Analysis Simulation Tools (Splike and Maceina 2001). References are not provided in the citation list.

DELV 10: Mark and release hatchery coastal rainbow trout in to Lake Roosevelt to evaluate negative interactions with wild redband trout during spawning – A rationale for a 10% tagging rate to identify if hatchery fish are interacting with wild redbands on the spawning grounds in Lake Roosevelt and upper Columbia River tributaries is given but is it scientifically defensible? Further details are also needed on the assumed negative impact of wild red band trout spawning together with hatchery rainbow.

 DELV-12: Estimate abundance of redband trout in the lower Spokane River – Details are needed on the mark-recapture model to be used. An unbiased estimate is promised.

DELV-13: Assess the redband trout population age structure for the lower Spokane River – The link to the random assignment method for scale selection does not work

DELV-14: Estimate abundance of northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir, Washington – What is the statistical basis for deciding that the target sample size for marked and recaptured fish is 10% of the population?

DELV-16: Estimate abundance and assess population structure of resident species in Box Canyon Reservoir – What is the rationale for surveys every three years? Some of the faster-growing species may show response faster than that. The sponsors state, “The number of sections sampled by each gear-type is proportional to those available within the main river and sloughs and determined from power analysis to detect change in mean CPUE of principle species by gear type with predefined level of confidence, accuracy, and precision.” What is the predefined level?

DELV-18: Determine factors limiting redband trout populations in tributaries to lower Spokane River, Lake Roosevelt, and the upper Columbia River – The description of limiting factors is very general and needs more explanation and detail than “Redband trout limiting habitat factors includes the physical, chemical and biological components of the environment.”

DELV 19-21 concerning lake trout ecology in Upper Priest Lake and Priest Lake – The sponsors state, “Lake trout suppression in Upper Priest Lake removes approximately 80% of the population annually” and “In anticipation of a largescale effort to reduce the abundance, management needs accurate population estimates to model the effort required to crash the population through increased angler harvest and mechanical suppression.” Further details are needed on the proposed model that provides the rationale for this data need. How does this strategy/model compare with other lake trout suppression models, for example that proposed for Flathead Lake? The project would benefit from direct collaboration with biologists working on the same lake trout problem in Flathead Lake.

A recent paper by Syslo et al. (2011) documenting 15 years of lake trout control in Yellowstone Lake demonstrates the complexities of trying to suppress this apex predator: John M. Syslo, Christopher S. Guy, Patricia E. Bigelow, Philip D. Doepke,Brian D. Ertel, and Todd M. Koel, 2011. Response of non-native lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to 15 years of harvest in Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2011, 68:(12) 2132-2145, 10.1139/f2011-122.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Methods for all sampling are given with a wide range of completeness.

The sponsors should consider a more modern condition factor index (e.g., lipid content, etc.) to replace the traditional Fulton index (1902).

There are several protocols for gill netting and electrofishing netting identified. It would be helpful to clarify which is the accepted method.

The protocol states, “The benthic invertebrate protocol is the same as that described by Hawkins et al. (2001). Benthic invertebrates should be collected at all sites. Collect 2 samples from the first 4 fast-water riffle habitats encountered at the site.” No reference is provided for Hawkins et al (2001). What is the statistical basis for this sampling intensity?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/16/2012 10:19:04 PM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/16/2012 10:19:31 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (3/6/2012)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1997-004-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1997-004-00 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-004-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1997-004-00 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The basic design of this project is collaboration; project staff subcontract many work elements with WDFW, STI and CCT. The proposal is well-written and clearly traces the history of the project. Recent efforts have been actively improving the program by a) standardizing and upgrading data collection techniques and experimental design and b) making data more available, primarily on Streamnet. Reviewers note and applaud significant progress.

That said, future activities need to begin another upgrade, namely a gradual shift in project justification. In its previous review the ISRP commented that the Panel will be looking for clear descriptions as to how managers are using the data generated, and that comment is being repeated more forcefully here. Project justification must begin to move from the current "fill data gaps" to something more scientifically meaningful, more cost-effective, and more likely to benefit fish, fish habitat, and resource managers. That means a focus on limiting factors, looking for opportunities (especially those that are time-critical) to gather data to help the resource managers actually preserve and restore the most important habitat/populations. Refer to the ISAB's report: A Review of Strategies for Recovering Tributary Habitat; ISAB 2003-2: www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2003-2.htm.

To date, project efforts seem to focus on reporting "activities performed," but should be placing more emphasis on "results obtained." Unfortunately project activities in recent history have largely been to document the invasion of one exotic fish species after another, which seems a fact of life today in the region. Proposed objectives seem reasonable for burbot and redband trout. The planning for, and discussion of, census techniques for proposed Spokane River project seems very well considered. However, the value of diet analysis and bioenergetics modeling for northern pike seems of low management value. Such work has been done repeatedly elsewhere and would not seem needed to assess the situation.

Project staff is encouraged to increase their level of publication in peer-reviewed literature in the future.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1997-004-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1997-004-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Population M&E, also water quality surveys, for resident fish, Pend Oreille basin; fishery managers/others also authorized/required to perform; need criteria to confirm BPA not funding activities others required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-004-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1997-004-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Joe Maroney Project Lead Kalispel Tribe
Jason Connor Project Lead Kalispel Tribe
Susan Markey (Inactive) Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Brian Crossley Technical Contact Spokane Tribe
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jolene Seymour Administrative Contact Kalispel Tribe
Israel Duran Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Cassandra Flanagan Project Lead Spokane Tribe
Leslie Plum Technical Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Charles Lee Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Holly McLellan Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Todd Andersen Project Lead Kalispel Tribe
Michael Garrity Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Carlos Matthew Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Brady (USGS) Allen Project SME US Geological Survey (USGS)