|
|
|
Final Step Review - Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish, Project 199500100
July 1, 2002 | document ISRP 2002-12
At the Council's request, the ISRP reviewed the Step submittal for
Project 199500100, Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish. The step submittal
initiated a combined step review that addresses the construction of two
rearing ponds in association with the Kalispel Tribal Hatchery. This step
review is based in part to address comments provided by the ISRP (ISRP
2001-4) and folded into the Council's Issue Summary for the Mountain
Columbia provincial review. As commonly occurs in Step reviews, the
ISRP conducted a preliminary review of the Step submittal and requested
additional information and response from the sponsor to help clarify
issues before the ISRP releases a final report (ISRP
2002-7). This final report contains the ISRP's evaluation of
the original submittal with the added information in the response.
In the preliminary review, ISRP reviewers requested additional specific
information to be able to better assess whether the proposed pond
construction will enable the project to meet its goals. Reviewers find
that the proposal and response are uneven in quality, with some areas
showing good planning, organization, and logical thinking, while others
like experimental design and monitoring seem quite superficial.
Reviewers note that this project is billed as a
"supplementation" program. Elsewhere in the basin, the ISRP has
reviewed anadromous supplementation projects and facilities and are
holding those projects to very high standards of experimental design and
monitoring and evaluation. This program should be held to equally
rigorous levels of experimental design and monitoring to assess project
success and treatment efficacies; granted this supplementation is dealing
with a non-native population of bass, and thus risks are different than
with supplementation of ESA-listed native salmonids. Experimental design
and monitoring and evaluation are the project's current weakest points. If
those aspects of the project are not brought to higher standards, then the
project is little more than a trial-and-error project, rather than
adaptive management.
One of the original ISRP comments was: "The study is only intended
to determine whether fish released as fry, fingerlings, or larger
sub-adult bass, each released at different locations will be recaptured at
the same or differing rates. This assessment may not even be possible so
the proponents need to calculate how many tags must be recovered from each
group so as to detect differences between groups with acceptable
confidence, and determine whether that number is reasonable given their
proposed methods. Further, the study does little to shed light on the
impact for the overall goal, which is to enhance the quality (more large
fish presumably) of the fishery. It is possible, for example, that the
supplementation will reduce the number of large fish. The previous ISRP
comment that supplementation of this bass population should be carried out
as a carefully designed experiment still stands." After the review of
the response, the ISRP still believes these comments apply. The
project needs to be experimental, designed and conducted by experienced
researchers, with creative methods and tight controls to assess progress
(whether success or failure). It is currently none of the above.
Pond Construction and Operation
The response adequately addresses the ISRP's most important issues
with pond construction and management. Specifically, size grading of
fish every 10-14 days seems a reasonable approach to minimizing
cannibalism. However, the timing and duration of grading is not
specified in the response and appears to apply only to the rearing period
prior to placing fish in ponds. If it proves to be warranted,
consideration may need to be given to conducting periodic grading during
the pond-rearing phase.
Having drainable ponds, as planned, will facilitate removal of fish
when rearing is complete and prevent the holding over of piscivorous
fishes in the ponds. Fertilizing ponds to stimulate plankton seems
appropriate.
Stocking Strategies
On the other hand, the response clarified but did not resolve issues in
regard to the ISRP's preliminary comments on stocking strategies.
Reviewers reject the argument posed in the response that since few if any
bass fry were found in stomachs of piscivorous fishes from the reservoir
that were checked in the past, then the 100,000 fry that would be released
from the hatchery each year would not be eaten. With an average size
of 55 mm and no prior exposure to predators, the fry would be very
vulnerable to a number of opportunistic predators. Based on numerous
published studies there is reason to believe that piscivorous and avian
predators might consume the bulk of a group of hatchery-produced fry
within a few days of release. Should this operation proceed,
reviewers urge project staff to carefully devise and monitor release
strategies intended to minimize such losses.
Program Goals and Monitoring and Evaluation
The ISRP also requested further clarification on the program's goals
and monitoring and evaluation. As identified in previous ISRP comments,
there is no strong basis for supplementing the bass population in the
reservoir. Experiments with careful monitoring could be carried out
to help conclude whether, and at what level, supplementing the population
is likely to produce the desired result. However, the proposed evaluation
program for supplementation is inadequate. Responses were not
provided.
At this stage in the project, reviewers feel that important questions
regarding the basis for this project remain unanswered. The capacity
of Box Canyon Reservoir to produce significantly more large bass is
unknown. Whether hatchery-produced bass fry would survive in the
reservoir and live longer enough to enhance the harvest is in doubt.
What was initially a relatively low cost operation, based on the use of
existing sloughs for bass rearing, now becomes more expensive, elaborate,
and energy-demanding if ponds are to be built. If, as reviewers
believe, the larger project is a poor venture, it makes little sense to go
forward with pond construction even if the ponds were perfectly
constructed and operated.
^ top |
|
home