The sponsors’ response to the ISRP’s questions concerning the Goose Creek habitat restoration project was satisfactory. They presented what appears to be a carefully planned, exceptionally well designed, and scientifically sound monitoring program for instream and riparian habitat and floodplain recovery for Goose Creek. The sponsors have selected appropriate indicators and performance criteria for monitoring channel and floodplain changes which should allow them to determine whether the restoration objectives are being met. The monitoring plan for westslope cutthroat trout is currently not well developed. The sponsors discussed the rationale and to some extent the procedures that will be used to reintroduce cutthroat to Goose Creek, but details of a monitoring plan for the cutthroat population after reintroduction were not provided. This is, perhaps, understandable because reintroduction of trout into Goose Creek will not take place for several years. Nevertheless, the sponsors should submit a detailed monitoring plan for cutthroat prior to implementation of the plan.

The sponsors for the most part provided a satisfactory response to the ISRP’s questions about the project to develop a largemouth bass subsistence fishery in a small slough off Box Canyon Reservoir. This fishery is a highly artificial situation where largemouth bass will be stocked as fry and fed worms and brook trout while in the slough rather than having to forage naturally. It is uncertain at this point whether artificial feeding will be able to sustain the bass population over the long run. After two production years a progress report on this project should be reviewed by the ISRP.

In their request for a response the ISRP asked if the sponsors had plans to monitor fish/bass tissue for possible mercury contamination. The sponsors responded, "At this time there is no plan for monitoring mercury levels in bass within the slough, however KNRD management along with hatchery staff are exploring options for testing and monitoring." As this is a subsistence fishery, the ISRP recommends that some level of monitoring for mercury be implemented.

Goose Creek Habitat Restoration: The sponsors should develop a detailed plan for monitoring westslope cutthroat trout after their reintroduction to Goose Creek. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP prior to its implementation.

Largemouth Bass Production and Fishery: The ISRP would like to review a progress report in two years on how the largemouth bass program is working. As proposed, the potential benefits and success are uncertain. This report should also include an evaluation of how the screening is working. The ISRP also recommends that the sponsors pursue their plans for monitoring mercury in bass tissue as this is a subsistence fishery.

There are two separate components to this proposal. One component is directed at recovery of native westslope cutthroat trout in Goose Creek, which flows through a land parcel purchased by the Kalispel Tribe. It involves eradication of brook trout, habitat restoration, and installation of a weir to prevent return of brook trout into Goose Creek following their eradication. The other component is a resident fish substitution project to enhance a largemouth bass fishery in a slough in Box Canyon Reservoir slough on the Pend Oreille River.

The ISRP has a number of questions regarding elements within each of these components and requests a response regarding the issues described below.

Goose Creek Habitat Restoration

The first objective is to restore habitat for westslope cutthroat trout in of 3.65 km of Goose Creek, which flows through a land parcel purchased by the Kalispell Tribe. Non-native brook trout will be eradicated in this steam and prevented from recolonizing by construction of a barrier at the downstream end of the parcel. Native westslope cutthroat trout will then be translocated to the restored part of Goose Creek to re-establish a population. This Objective is technically justified, but the ISRP requests a response to the following in order to complete our evaluation of the proposal.

1. Clarify differences between Deliverables 2 and 4, and between Deliverables 1, 3, and 7.
2. Discuss the plans for reintroduction of westslope cutthroat trout to Goose Creek and indicate when the reintroduction will occur relative to habitat recovery.
3. Explain the RM&E plan for Goose Creek.

Largemouth Bass Production and Fishery

Objective 2 is intended to establish a subsistence fishery for largemouth bass in a slough of Box Canyon Reservoir located on the Kalispell Reservation. Largemouth bass will be reared in a hatchery and stocked as fingerlings in the slough. The sponsors intend to place a screen at the mouth of the slough to prevent emigration of bass out of the slough and immigration of northern pike into it. The ISRP has a number of questions below regarding the development of a subsistence fishery for largemouth bass in the slough. Addressing these questions will help the ISRP complete their evaluation of the proposal.

1. What will be the estimated abundance and size structure of bass in the slough?
2. What is the estimated carrying capacity?
3. Will abundance of forage fish in the slough, other than added brook trout, be sufficient to support a viable bass population?
4. Will northern pike and other undesirable fish be removed or suppressed in the slough and how will this be done?
5. More information on the screening operation is needed. What types of screens will be installed and will they be sufficient to prevent movement of fish into and out of the slough under seasonal and annual changes in reservoir elevation.
6. Can the issue of mercury contamination of bass tissue be resolved, especially if mercury is bio-accumulating through consumption of forage fish. Is there a plan for monitoring mercury levels in bass and other fishes in the slough?
7. Explain the RM&E plan for the largemouth bass fishery.

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

This project addresses multiple objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, strategies and objectives of the Pend Oreille Subbasin Plan, and the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan 2002. The technical background is very well done, although the two unrelated objectives make a case for two separate proposals. The Objectives are adequate when linked with Deliverables which have specific target habitat features and target production numbers for largemouth bass.

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

The native fish component lists a series of bulleted accomplishments ranging from installing habitat structures, fencing, brook trout removal, and population/habitat surveys. It would be helpful to include some response levels and indicators of progress for habitat and westslope cutthroat trout recovery.

The largemouth bass component has a number of changes since the last ISRP review of this project including increased production of bass fry and improved post-release survival. Some indication of the level of demand, total catch, and efficiency is warranted.

Adaptive Management: The project has undergone a number of changes based in part on ISRP recommendations, past results in attempting to establish a reservoir-wide bass fishery, and impacts of the invasion of northern pike. The goal of the project is now to establish a subsistence bass fishery in a small slough of Box Canyon reservoir through outplanting fry reared in the tribal hatchery. This is a good management strategy as long as the screen placed at the mouth of the slough is effective in preventing movement of bass out of the slough and pike into it. This is a good example of adaptive management.

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

The proposal cites relationships with several other projects including: the Albeni Falls Wetlands Wildlife Mitigation Project #199206102, the Intermountain Province/Pend Oreille Subbasin Data Management Project #201102000, and the Non-Native Fish Suppression Project #200714900. All Resident Fish Project data was used for the WDFW 2009 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Status Update in 2009. In 2010, all project data was used for NetMap coverage and analysis in conjunction with the SRFB WRIA 62 Strategy update.

An important limiting factor for the largemouth bass is the increase in northern pike in Box Canyon Reservoir over the past few years. This has led to some modifications of the project such as slough screening and targeted removal of pike. Climate change and increased temperatures are also recognized as emerging limiting factors, and the plan to improve riparian shading along Goose Creek is a good response to these factors.

The sponsors state that there are no RM&E plans for this project. This is a perplexing statement. They need to monitor and evaluate the progress of their work. RM&E plans for both the Goose Creek and the largemouth bass hatchery project need to be developed. The response should discuss these plans.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

For the most part the Deliverables are straightforward and present a logical approach to accomplishing the objectives of the project. A few Deliverables need clarification. Deliverables 2 and 4 appear very similar. The sponsors need to explain how they are different. The same can be said for Deliverables 1, 3, and 7. Deliverables 10-14 pertain to fingerling bass production in the hatchery. Justification for these Deliverables is contingent on a satisfactory response to the previously posed questions.

During the site visit, reed canary grass appeared to be widespread on the Goose Creek floodplain. Will there be an attempt to control this plant and how will it be done?

The sponsors should discuss their plans for reintroducing westslope cutthroat trout to Goose Creek. Will the reintroduction occur after the habitat has sufficiently recovered?

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

Protocols and methods specific to the project were not found in MonitoringMethods.org.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:49:22 PM.

The project has three major components: coordinate bull trout restoration, manage trout habitat and non-native trout in tributaries, and propagate largemouth bass. Based on the proposal, the ISRP felt in its preliminary review that all components either were producing no benefits or were showing evidence of failure, and should not receive future funding. However, material furnished in the response satisfactorily addressed many of those concerns, and the ISRP recommends Fundable for the trout components (Objectives 1, 3, and 4) and Fundable in Part for the largemouth bass component (Objective 2) to monitor and evaluate the bass already reared and released. The ISRP does not recommend further rearing and release of largemouth bass.

The primary basis for the recommended reduction of the project is the serious potential for deleterious interactions between the stocked largemouth bass and native aquatic species. This potential is not restricted to this location, but exists throughout the Columbia River Basin, as a result of natural migration and angler-assisted translocations. Secondary considerations are the inconsistent goals of improving habitat for native trout and removal of non-native brook trout while simultaneously stocking large-mouth bass, and a lack of evidence supplied in the proposal or response, that the bass stocking is efficacious.

The ISRP has reviewed the largemouth bass supplementation for FY 98, 99, 00, the Provincial Review (01), and a Three-Step Review. The initial reviews (FY 98, 99, and 00) found the proposal inadequate (98) or recommended no bass stocking (99), emphasizing the problem of conflicting program goals - stocking bass while removing non-native trout and attempting to restore native trout habitat. In the Provincial (01 - 03) and Three Step reviews the ISRP focused on the lack of evidence that a bass hatchery could be successful and the need for a strong experimental design. This FY 07-9 recommendation is consistent with the earliest ISRP reviews, and with the ISRP's understanding of the guidance for fish substitution in the Council's program. The current panel understands that this recommendation is more conservative than the Provincial and Three-Step Review.

In reaching its conclusion, the ISRP gave consideration to the preexisting introduced species in the Pend Oreille River system, but concluded in the end that the action is inherently in conflict with not only other Fish and Wildlife Program goals and guidance, but also with good conservation principles in general.

Reviews evaluating aquatic biodiversity issues have concluded that interactions with exotic species are perhaps even more of a cause of the loss of diversity than habitat alteration (degradation). Largemouth bass have been introduced in various places in the Columbia River Basin and have established reproducing populations. These introductions would likely not pass scrutiny at this time, and would not now form a basis for actively engaging in the rearing and release of exotic species into open waters. There is increasing awareness throughout the western U.S. and around the world of the negative impact of largemouth bass outside their native range. Projects such as this pose risks well beyond their immediate areas, as bass are particularly good at living in buckets while being moved for 50 miles. Largemouth bass are adapting to cooler temperatures; once thought to become inactive below 50 degrees F, they have recently been found to actively travel and feed in ice-covered water bodies.

In response to the ISRP request for information on the success of the largemouth bass stocking, the response argues that more time is needed: "the hatchery went through a Three-Step review process in 2002 for the construction of 3 rearing ponds. Until these ponds were built, the hatchery program was unable to achieve the goals of the hatchery (produce 100,000 largemouth bass). In 2003, the ponds were first used, which has dramatically increased the numbers of bass produced and helped to address program goals. Unfortunately, these fish will not be recruited into the fishery for several more years." Reviewers believe this period of time is easily long enough for bass (now 3+years old) to have reached the creel. There should be information available. In any case, stocking additional largemouth bass is not needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the initial stocking program, and continued stocking may in fact help establish an unwanted non-native species.

Regarding the trout and trout habitat activities, fencing to exclude livestock is continuing and engineered large woody structures are being placed. In the plan for revised and improved M&E on the habitat work, the intent is to make population estimates in three randomly selected 50-meter sections of stream and in one 100-m section. The amount of sampling should probably be more intense in order to get valid results. There should be more sections sampled, and each section should be at least 100 m long. The plan includes dividing the stream into 50-m reference sections, which is probably a very good idea for physical monitoring. For the electrofishing, adjacent 50-m sections can be combined. The sponsors should obtain the advice of a biostatistician in further designing the M&E data collection and analysis.

The response material was clear and focused in regard to Objective 3 (manage nonnative fish species). Reviewers agree the brook trout suppression by electrofishing should proceed, but on a strict experimental basis while results are evaluated over the next three years, e.g., the cutthroat trout response to the completed partial brook trout removal by electrofishing in Mineral and Saucon creeks. Reviewers anticipate the surviving brook trout will increase in numbers much faster than will cutthroat trout, but hope they are incorrect. The sponsors should plan to publish results in a scientific journal.