The FERC relicensing process identified that permanent fish passage was required for the POR dams including Albeni Falls, especially for bull trout (ESA Threatened). The trap and transport mode has been implemented as a temporary measure and includes some rather clever monitoring that combines genetics and radio-tracking to measure success/benefits, but also to continue learning about life history and biology of the bull trout.

The genetics information to be gathered for the Westslope cutthroat trout will be important for identifying components of the river's metapopulation and to provide basic information to inform future management decisions and actions. Lessons learned by trap and haul work on this major river system will have application to numerous areas in the Columbia River Basin with similar problems for bull trout and west slope cutthroat trout. As the sponsors note at least four dams are required to provide fish passage within their new FERC licenses

 The sponsors should be urged to make sure their monitoring program covers the possibility that bull trout released in the reservoir may be using tributaries in addition to the streams where their PIT tag receivers are located. The ISRP learned from the presentation that 2011 data suggested more straying from natal steams than anticipated.

 

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

The technical background is appropriate to justify the need and the basis for the proposed activities. Both objectives are consistent and tiered to priority actions in the Pend Oreille Subbasin Plan.

 The project is clearly significant to regional programs. Lessons learned by trap and haul work on this major river system will have application to numerous areas in the CRB with similar problems for bull trout and west slope cutthroat trout. As the sponsors note at least 4 dams are required to provide fish passage within their new FERC licenses.

The technical background is succinct and clearly outlines the problems and achievements to date by the sponsors and others. A concern is the fate of the offspring of the fish that are trapped and hauled. It seems that if the entrainment-passage problem is not resolved within their life span they are destined for difficult passage downstream unless they remain in the reservoir. Obviously further work, outside the scope of this particular proposal, is required.

The objectives are well described and are straightforward.

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

The narrative describes the history of actions, accomplishments, and results of previous RME.

Results have been very useful and are providing basic data needed for conservation of these two species.

 

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

The sponsors give a good balanced account of the possible effects of climate change. They are likely overly optimistic about the potential for pike removal.

Tagging methods are well described although details such as dummy surgery results are not given. Statistical methods are not given, but at this preliminary stage in the investigation numbers are small and likely not large enough for detailed analyses.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and Work Elements are appropriate for the objectives.

The metrics and methods for the temporary, manual passage of bull trout is a good way to test with tracking methods the hypothesis that passed fish migrate to probable source tributaries based on their genetic source assignments.

• DELV-7: Assignment of Archived Westslope Cutthroat Trout Samples from Pend Oreille River Below Albeni Falls Dam and Priest River

Archiving samples collected from the Pend Oreille River below Albeni Falls Dam and the Priest River will fill key data gaps associated with entrainment, life histories, migration, and tributary productivity and importance. It would have been useful to include more background on the catalog to get a sense of the project’s contribution to it.

• DELV-6: Genetic Analysis and Cataloging of Westslope Cutthroat Trout Genetic Samples

The sponsors provide a non-specific description of how genetic samples will be analyzed by mentioning possibly using microsatellite DNA, SNPs, or geochemical markers. More specificity would have been useful for meaningful scientific review.

Revision of the major geospatial database for the project is a step forward. The new Geospatial Enabled Database Management System (GEDMS) could not be accessed using the links provided in the proposal (see also review of 199700400 - Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams).

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

The proposal uses protocols submitted into MonitoringMethods.org - Temporary Fish Passage at Albeni Falls Dam and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Genetic Inventory.

Additional justification for collecting a maximum of 10 fish per 100 meters of stream length by backpack electrofishing would have been useful.

Monitoring sites for bull trout PIT tags are 8 tributaries that are potential spawning sites. Presumably there are no other potential streams that would contribute to monitoring the degree of straying. This raises the question of the design of the PIT tag monitoring and the geospatial issue.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:53:23 PM.

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.