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.

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.