FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200200900
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 |
|---|---|
| 24001 Narrative | Narrative |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lake Pend Oreille Predation Research |
| Proposal ID | 200200900 |
| Organization | Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Melo Maiolie |
| Mailing address | Bayview Field Office, PO Box 806 Bayview, ID 83803 |
| Phone / email | 2086833054 / mmaiolie@micron.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Steve Yundt, State Research Manager |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Upper |
| Short description | Project seeks to balance predators with the kokanee prey base in Lake Pend Oreille, reduce competition between bull trout and other predators, and to enhance or decrease the rainbow trout population as the kokanee population changes. |
| Target species | Bull trout, rainbow trout , lake trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.1565 | -116.3342 | Lake Pend Oreille |
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 |
|---|---|
| none, this is a new project. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9404700 | Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project | The proposed project will share boats, and equipment with the Fishery Recovery Project. The Fishery Recovery Project will provide information on the prey base while this project will develop the predator information and methods to balance the two. |
| Pend Oreille/Priest Exotic Fish Species Supression and Native Fish Protection Project | There is a complementary relationship between these two projects. One works with bull trout and lake trout the other with pelagic kokanee predators primarily rainbow trout. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| none | $0 |
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. Balance the pelagic predator and prey populations at a standing stocks not to exceed 1 kg/ha predator to 6 kg/ha prey. | a. Annually survey predators in Lake Pend Oreille using a split-beam echosounder and design survey with enough samples to get a + or - 50% confidence level. | ongoing | $30,000 | |
| b. Use cluster analysis to define different fish species on the echosounder based on their habitat variables. | 2 | $10,000 | ||
| c. Track predatory fish using sonic tags to document the habitat they use during the times of the hydroacoustic surveys. | 2 | $40,000 | ||
| d. Place small depth-temperature recording tags on rainbow trout, and lake trout, and offer rewards for anglers that return tags. This will define their habit during hydroacoustic surveys. | 2 | $20,000 | ||
| e. Based on the above, calculate a population estimate and biomass estimate for pelagic predators. | ongoing | $10,000 | ||
| f. Compare predator biomass to the biomass estimates for kokanee collected by the Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project. | ongoing | $1,000 | ||
| 2. Redefine the point of balance for predators and prey in Lake Pend Oreille where kokanee survival drops below 50% for any year class. | a. Compare kokanee survival rates to predator abundance estimates and define the mass balance point at which predators reduce kokanee survival (ie. kg/ha:kg/ha). | ongoing | $5,000 | |
| b. Compare mass balance points to literature examples of balance based on bioenergetics. | 1 | $1,000 | ||
| c. Develop a production based methodology for predator-prey balancing, (ie. kokanee production compared to predator production, predator consumption, or kokanee yield). | 3 | $15,000 | ||
| 3. Research and implement methods for the removal of exotic predator species which will not impact bull trout, until balance point is reached (currently thought to be 1:6). | a. Add prize money for lake trout and rainbow trout harvest to the K & K fishing derby and "mac of the month" derby and determine the increase in harvest. Implement annually if effective. | ongoing, if effective | $5,000 | |
| c. Determine feasibility and locations for using gill nets to actively remove rainbow trout, if feasible,socially acceptable, and needed, then implement in year 3. | 1 | $0 | ||
| 4. Publish results of the study to keep other scientists aware of our progress. | a. Write two publications, one on hydroacoustic methods to assess predator populations and one on balancing predators to a kokanee prey base during year three. | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Write annual report, quarterly reports, and give project presentations where needed. | ongoing | $4,000 | ||
| 5. Minimize the competition between bull trout and other predatory fish. Kokanee survival rates over 50% would indicate forage is not in limited supply. | a. Conducting the above activities of balancing predation also accomplishes the objective of reducing competition with bull trout. | ongoing | $0 | |
| $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Balance the pelagic predator and prey populations at approximate standing stocks of < 1 kg/ha predator to 6 kg/ha prey. | 2003 | 2004 | $111,000 |
| 2. Redefine the point of balance for predators and prey in Lake Pend Oreille where kokanee survival drops below 50% for any year class. | 2003 | 2004 | $21,000 |
| 3. Research and implement methods for the removal of exotic predator species which will not impact bull trout, until balance point is reached (currently thought to be 1:10). | 2003 | 2004 | $5,000 |
| 4. Publish results of the study. | 2004 | 2004 | $4,000 |
| 5. Minimize the competition between bull trout and other predatory fish. | 2003 | 2004 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $148,000 | $155,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Balance the pelagic predator and prey populations at a standing stocks of less than 1 kg/ha predator to 6 kg/ha prey. | a. Conduct a hydroacoustic of Lake Pend Oreille, then analyze for predator biomass and compare to kokanee biomass. | ongoing | $0 | |
| 2. Research and implement methods for the removal of exotic predator species which will not impact bull trout, until balance point is reached (currently thought to be 1:10). | a. Remove predatory fish through derbies, gillneting, trapnetting. | ongoing | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine the balance of pelagic predator and prey populations at a standing stocks of less than 1 kg/ha predator to 10 kg/ha prey. | 2005 | 2006 | $0 |
| 2. Implement methods for the removal of exotic predator species which will not impact bull trout, until balance point is reached (currently thought to be 1:6). | 2005 | 2006 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|
| $60,000 | $60,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2, 1 biologist and 1 bioaide. | $62,000 |
| Fringe | 36% | $22,000 |
| Supplies | $29,000 | |
| Travel | $5,000 | |
| Indirect | currently about 21% | $23,000 |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| $141,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $141,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $141,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
No change since this is a new project.
Reason for change in scope
No change.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club | They will hold the fishing derby to remove lake trout and rainbow trout, and record and weigh all fish caught. | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club | Collect rainbow trout and lake trout for tagging study. | $2,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Total budget drops in FY 2005 when project becomes more of an annual monitoring effort.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. This project proposes to use hydroacoustic surveys coupled with cluster analysis and tagging studies to define fish species abundances in order to achieve a balance between kokanee populations and their rainbow and lake trout predators. The brief proposal adequately describes methods. The investigators are qualified and the project has a high likelihood of reaching its analysis objectives. Whether it can reach its management objectives remains to be seen over time.The sponsors should carefully segregate the costs between their base project and this one. This could be contracted as a new task within the old project. Is Bonneville the appropriate source of funding for the derby? Sponsors should consider educating the public on keeping the rainbows and the value of catch and release in various scenarios. They should also consider a prize for the most fish caught or pounds caught. The proposal would have been stronger if the derby and prize money incentive strategy were supported by references that demonstrated the veracity of this approach. It was not clear that adding $5K to fishing derby prizes would significantly increase the number of lake and rainbow trout killed. Some better justification is needed. Also, proposal 24004 would provide $10K for identical prize money (duplication?). Further, why is prize money not matched by IDFG funds? These comments do not require a response to the ISRP but are for consideration by the investigators, the Council, and CBFWA.
Comment:
The benefits from this project could be compromised by activities outside the scope of this project. The project is not directly targeted at a threatened, endangered or sensitive population although indirect impacts may be observed.Comment:
Fundable. This project proposes to use hydroacoustic surveys coupled with cluster analysis and tagging studies to define fish species abundances in order to achieve a balance between kokanee populations and their rainbow and lake trout predators. The brief proposal adequately describes methods. The investigators are qualified and the project has a high likelihood of reaching its analysis objectives. Whether it can reach its management objectives remains to be seen over time.The sponsors should carefully segregate the costs between their base project and this one. This could be contracted as a new task within the old project. Is Bonneville the appropriate source of funding for the derby? Sponsors should consider educating the public on keeping the rainbows and the value of catch and release in various scenarios. They should also consider a prize for the most fish caught or pounds caught. The proposal would have been stronger if the derby and prize money incentive strategy were supported by references that demonstrated the veracity of this approach. It was not clear that adding $5K to fishing derby prizes would significantly increase the number of lake and rainbow trout killed. Some better justification is needed. Also, proposal 24004 would provide $10K for identical prize money (duplication?). Further, why is prize money not matched by IDFG funds? These comments do not require a response to the ISRP but are for consideration by the investigators, the Council, and CBFWA.
Comment:
This project has direct relationship to the BiOp requirements, but also warrants consideration of the points raised by the ISRP concerning the implementation techniques and the connection with proposal 24004.Comment:
A new Pend Oreille Lake predation research study is proposed (24001), with the stated objective of balancing predator and prey populations and reducing competition between bull trout and other species. CBFWA ranked this as a lower priority recommended action, and the ISRP found the project fundable, but agreed with the CBFWA priority statement. The issue is presented by Bonneville's comments, which state support for funding this project because it believes it has a direct relationship to the USFWS BiOp.
Initial staff recommendation: Recommend funding the project if the USFWS confirms in writing that this project is a Bonneville BiOp requirement. Do not add funding for prize money in the K&K fishing derby as requested in objective 3.
Comment:
Bonneville will fund... as recommended to meet requirements of the USFWS's BiOp as described in the Action Agencies 2002 Annual Implementation Plan.Comment:
Comment: