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