Boundary Tributary Non-Native Fish Eradication/Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration
Photo: KNRD
Welcome & Introductions
Photo: KNRD
Organizations and Roles
• Seattle City Light – Licensee for the operation of Boundary Dam
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife – State fish and wildlife management; implementation of non-native fish
eradication projects
• Kalispel Tribe Natural Resources Department – Implementation of non-native fish suppression and eradication projects
• Washington State University – Public information and facilitated outreach
2
Background
Photo:KNRD
2013: New Boundary license issued
– Settlement Agreement specifies Protection, Monitoring, and Evaluation measures associated with fish and aquatics resources impacted by Boundary Dam
– Fish & Aquatics Management Plan identifies suppression and eradication treatments in select Boundary tributaries
2016: Non-native fish suppression – Public Meeting June 2, 2016
– Non-native fish suppression initiated in Sullivan Creek
2017: Non-native fish eradication – Public Meetings April 13 and June 1, 2017
– Non-native fish eradication begins in Highline Creek
3
Key Issue: Non-Native Fish Species • Non-native fish are a major limiting factor to native salmonids
throughout the Pend Oreille River Basin – Competition for resources and habitat, predation risks, & hybridization
– Extensive stocking history throughout the Basin
– Pure Westslope Cutthroat Trout populations in the Basin now limited to headwater areas, primarily above barriers
• Addressing non-native fish species is vital for WCT recovery
Photo: Seattle City Light Photo: http://www.nps.gov/romo/images/lg_stockfishglaciercreek1932_1.jpg
4
A Declining Native Species: Westslope Cutthroat Trout
• Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WCT) historically present in majority of Pend Oreille River Basin streams
– Currently present in only ~35%
• Petitioned for ESA listing (1998) – “Not warranted” at that time
• Many factors have/continue to contribute to decline – Habitat loss, fragmentation,
degradation, and isolation, non-native fish
Photo: http://gallery.usgs.gov/images/05_23_2014/iNEp2TS220_05_23_2014/large/Muhlfeld_et_al_NCC_cover1.jpg 5
Importance of Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration • Restoration of WCT in the Pend Oreille River Basin will:
– Create more resilient and genetically diverse WCT populations
– Expand the distribution and abundance of the species
– Reduce the potential for listing or efforts to petition a listing of WCT under the Endangered Species Act (example Bull Trout)
– Provide sustainable fishery for native WCT
• Projects that reduce the number of non-native fish in tributaries will significantly contribute to long-term WCT persistence
Photo: KNRD 6
Suppression (Electrofishing): – Used to selectively remove fish-leave
native fish intact
– Difficult to conduct in complex habitat
– Relative high cost and long-term commitment
– Low to moderate probability of complete removal
Eradication (Rotenone Treatment): – Naturally occurring substance
– Used to remove all fish
– Efficient and effective alternative to mechanical removals
– Cost efficient and high probability of complete removal
Options for Addressing Non-Native Fish
Photo: Seattle City Light
Photo: Seattle City Light 7
Options for Addressing Non-Native Fish • Electrofishing Suppression Efforts
and Rotenone Treatments: – Each project evaluated individually for
appropriate method
– Both methods have been applied locally
– Both methods are planned for use within the Boundary project area and the greater Pend Oreille River Basin
– Public meeting schedule addresses both techniques
– Provided information on Electrofishing Suppression efforts on June 2, 2016
• Remainder of this meeting is focused on Rotenone Treatments
Photo: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/images/10092014_graylingCreekRestoration_1.jpg
Photo: KNRD
8
• Rotenone is a naturally occurring toxin found in the roots of some plants in Legume (bean) family – Indigenous people in tropical/subtropical areas have used roots of these
plants to harvest fish for centuries
– EPA approved formulation that’s highly effective and specific to fish and aquatic life
– Acts by blocking oxygen uptake during cellular respiration
Rotenone Overview
9 Photo: KNRD 9
• Rotenone breakdown occurs quickly in tributary treatments – Undetectable at application sites within a matter of hours
– Exposure to air and sunlight rapidly breaks down rotenone
– Readily binds to organic matter, preventing it from leaching into groundwater supplies
• Deactivated of rotenone occurs outside (bottom) of treatment reach using potassium permanganate
Rotenone Overview
10 Photo: KNRD
• At concentrations used in fisheries management, rotenone poses virtually no threat to mammals or birds drinking treated water or eating dead fish – Low treatment concentrations used in
streams (0.5-2.5 ppm)
– A 2.5 pound bird would have to consume more than 7,500 pounds of treated fish at one sitting to receive lethal dose
– A 160 pound person would need to drink more than 23,000 gallons of treated water at one sitting to receive lethal dose
Rotenone Overview
11
Photo: https://ospreytaleteller.com/2014/06/29/fatherly-advice/
Photo: http://www.hardworkingtrucks.com/water-truck-business-soars-in-drought-ridden-california/
• Used in fisheries management in the U.S. since the 1930’s
• Kings Lake in Pend Oreille County (1940) – First rotenone treatment in State of Washington
• Primary use in State of Washington has been to maintain sport-fisheries (lakes) – Over 800 total treatments in 300+ Eastern WA water bodies since 1940
Rotenone use in Fisheries Management
12 Photos: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Widely used for conservation in the Western U.S.
• Lakes, streams, and combined systems treated
• Montana has treated over 100 miles since 2000
• Native trout restoration in Eastern WA: – Cee Cee Ah Creek Project (2008-2010) Pend Oreille County
– Smalle Creek (2015-present) Pend Oreille County
– Numerous stream candidates throughout Pend Oreille County
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2011 2013 2014 2016
Wes
tslo
pe
Cu
tth
roat
Tro
ut
Po
pu
lati
on
Siz
e
Year
Cee Cee Ah Creek
N =
N =
Rotenone use for Native Fish Restoration
13
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2008 2009 2010
Esti
mat
ed n
um
ber
of
Bro
ok
Tro
ut
rem
ove
d
Year
Cee Cee Ah Creek
• Candidate criteria: – Presence of non-native fish
– Appropriate and suitable habitat for native fish
– Presence of a downstream control point that will prevent non-native species from reinvading habitat post-treatment (e.g., waterfall or constructed feature)
• Candidate characteristics evaluated: – Land ownership, land/water use
– Recreational or subsistence fishing
– Fish community demographics (i.e., species present, proportions, densities)
– Project feasibility (i.e., project size, habitat conditions/complexity, accessibility)
Planning Considerations for Treatment Candidate Streams
14 Photo: KNRD
• Initial Projects: – Smaller-scale projects with high probability of success
– Limited habitat complexity
– Project area is isolated (i.e., has fish passage barrier)
– Mostly public land ownership (e.g., USFS) with minimal land use (e.g., grazing, agriculture)
– Native fish will be restored using translocations
• Future Projects: – Expand to larger, more complex systems
– Phased approach to individual projects
– Varied land ownership
– Increased pre-treatment data collection
– Native Salmonid Conservation Facility reliant projects (i.e., native fish salvage and reintroduction)
Planning Considerations for Treatment Candidate Streams
15
• Most candidates identified during Boundary relicensing
• Adaptive management provides program flexibility – Smaller, previously unidentified treatment areas may be considered
– Changes to schedule are based on priorities, project complexity, management plans, Native Salmonid Conservation Facility schedule
• Several treatment candidates identified over next 20-25 years – Mileage is an estimate which is refined prior to implementation
– Candidates are in no particular order unless noted in the table
Boundary Rotenone Treatment Candidates
16
Tributary Candidate Estimated Treatment Miles Comment
Highline Creek (Sullivan basin)
0.7 Actual distance; 1st planned treatment of Boundary tributaries
Flume Creek ~9.8 Close estimate (field survey)
Pewee Creek ~1.2 Estimated distance
Slate Creek and Tributaries
~9.5 Estimated distance
17
Tributary Candidate Estimated Treatment Miles
Highline Creek (Sullivan basin)
0.7
Flume Creek ~9.8
Pewee Creek ~1.2
Slate Creek and Tributaries ~9.5
Highline Creek Rotenone Treatment Overview
18
• 2016: Work authorizations, data collection, planning, public outreach
• 2016-2017: Implementation plan, public outreach, project preparation
• 2017-2019: Implement one treatment annually – August/September timeframe – Up to 3 consecutive years – Annually evaluate success
• 2019-2020: Reintroduction of Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WCT) – Translocation of WCT from within
Sullivan Watershed
• 2021-on: Periodic monitoring of WCT population until restoration is achieved
Next Steps
• Ongoing information and outreach effort—next meeting June 1st
• Conduct fall Highline Creek treatment
• Evaluate and schedule remaining Boundary treatment candidates
• Collect data for next scheduled treatment candidate
• Treat next candidate stream
Photo: http://www.npr.org/2013/11/14/239246623/as-climate-warms-american-west-iconic-trout-in-jeopardy
19
Information & Outreach
• Goal: provide information and answer questions on suppression and eradication projects in Boundary tributaries
• Progress: Two meetings held to date with focus on both suppression and eradication
• Upcoming: Next meeting to focus on rotenone treatment to remove non-native Brook Trout in Highline Creek – Thursday June 1, 2017 at Cutter
Theatre from 6-7:30 pm
Photo: KNRD 20
Thank You
Photo: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fisheries/images/aquaticSpeciesSlideShow/westslopeCutthroat.jpg
Photo: KNRD
Top Related