FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34009
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 34009 Narrative | Narrative |
| Letter from R. Austin (BPA) to D. Marker (NPCC) RE: BPA Decision on two Innovative project proposals | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Net Pen Rearing Spring Chinook in Lake Osoyoos |
| Proposal ID | 34009 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jerry Marco |
| Mailing address | CCT Fish and Wildlife Department Nespelem, Washington 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342210 / cctfish@mail.wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | This project will investigate and demonstrate the feasibility of recreating a unique lake-rearing spring chinook salmon population in Lake Osoyoos to expand the diversity, distribution, and abundance of an endangered ESU. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.9763 | -119.4322 | Lake Osoyoos |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Review Literature and historical accounts of Chinook salmon in and above Lake Osoyoos. | 2 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Obtain permits, licenses, and agreements | 2.1. DOE permit for pen rearing | 1 | $2,500 | Yes |
| 2.2. COE permit for pen rearing | 1 | $2,500 | Yes | |
| 2.3. Agreement with Canadians | 3 | $4,000 | ||
| 2.4. Local government permits | 1 | $1,500 | Yes | |
| 2.5. Conduct NEPA | 4 | $5,000 | ||
| 3. Survey Lake Osoyoos | 3.1. Review literature and records | 2 | $5,000 | Yes |
| 3.2. Survey lake depths | 1 | $7,000 | Yes | |
| 3.3. Measure lake temperatures | 6 | $10,500 | Yes | |
| 3.4. Measure lake D.O. | 6 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| 3.5. Measure lake flow velocities | 6 | $6,000 | Yes | |
| 3.6. Locate accessible pen sites | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| 4. Develop net pen rearing site(s) | 4.1. Purchase and assemble net pens | 2 | $40,000 | |
| 4.2. Prepare pen site(s): anchors, floats | 2 | $7,000 | Yes | |
| 5. Operate and maintain net pen facility | 5.1. Spawn, incubate, and rear chinook | 12 | $0 | Yes |
| 5.2. Transfer chinook to net pens | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| 5.3. Overwinter rear chinook, spring release | 6 | $51,000 | ||
| 6. M&E rearing program | 6.1. Evaluate the success of net pen rearing | 8 | $0 | |
| 6.2. Evaluate juvenile chinook migration from Lake Osoyoos. | 5 | $40,000 | ||
| 6.3. Evaluate juvenile migration through hydrosystem. | 1 | $1,000 | ||
| 6.4. Evaluate adult returns | 1 | $0 | ||
| 6.5. Coordinate and report results | 10 | $6,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $22,000 | |
| Fringe | @ 40% | $9,000 |
| Supplies | $10,000 | |
| Travel | $8,000 | |
| Indirect | @ 20% | $4,000 |
| Capital | 4 net pens and related equipment; PIT detection system | $80,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 4,000 | $9,000 |
| NEPA | $5,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $52,000 | |
| $199,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $199,000 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $199,000 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost sharing will be sought from Canadian and First Nation fishery managers. The costs of the PIT detection system might also be incorporated into project #29008. | $0 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
The proposal left too many issues unaddressed and net pens are not innovative; this proposal belonged in the Columbia Cascade Province review (which is nearing completion). The sponsors have considerable experience with net pen rearing of other species, which is the method proposed for acclimation of chinook in this case. The new idea is that this approach has not been attempted to restore chinook stocks.There is historical information of a spring Chinook run to the Okanogan, but the spawning stream is not in useable condition at this time. The probability of establishing a spring chinook run seems very low, as is the ability to (simultaneously) generate a recreational and subsistence fishery. There are many logistical concerns with this proposal. No evidence is provided that net pens may be sited in Lake Osoyoos, and the likelihood of putting the net pens in area that is suitable (cold enough) is slim. The number of streams suitable for spring chinook in the area is minimal, and no indication of potential impact to the present recreational uses of the lake, including the recreational fishery, was given.
There are questions about whether the net pen reared fish would migrate out of Lake Osoyoos or residualize. The proposal would PIT tag half of the smolts in order to follow their progress out of the lake.
More than 18 months would be needed to evaluate this project because of the life history of chinook. It is not clear what the duration of the project would be. The total number of months shown in the budget sheet includes items that overlap in their schedules, and will not add up to a full duration.
Concerns notwithstanding, this was one of the few innovative proposals that offered the potential to directly increase fish populations.
Comment:
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitNo benefit to listed species. Evaluation/Supplementation project to increase abundance and diversity of spring chinook by rearing juveniles in floating pens in Lake Osoyoos to create a lake rearing population.
Comments
May be risks to existing sockeye population.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUNo benefit to listed species. Evaluation/Supplementation project to increase abundance and diversity of spring chinook by rearing juveniles in floating pens in Lake Osoyoos to create a lake rearing population.
Comments
May be risks to existing sockeye population.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No