FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200102800: Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Project

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Matt Polacek

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200102800
Proposal Name: Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Project
BPA Project Manager: Gregory Baesler
Agency, Institution or Organization: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short Description: The Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Project proposes to enter an implememtation phase, applying results from the past 4 years to create stategies to maximize kokanee production in the lake with the creation of an artificial spawning channel.
Information Transfer: Results from this project would be posted on the WDFW and BPA websites in report form and published as a manuscript in a scientific journal. The spawning channel would also be accessible to the public for viewing with an interpretive trail and kiosk illustrating project history.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Matt Polacek Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 5981 Vantage Hwy. Suite 100
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Ph: 509.925.1025
Fax: ..
Email: polacmcp@dfw.wa.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Matt Polacek Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 5981 Vantage Hwy. Suite 100
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Ph: 509.925.1025
Fax: ..
Email: polacmcp@dfw.wa.gov
Form Submitter
Project Lead
Technical Contact

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Crab ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
47.8333 119.0833 Banks Lake Central Washington Grant, Washington Columbia Upper No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Burbot
Kokanee
Rainbow Trout
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Began fourth year of baseline data collection and creel survey. Completed the entrainment study. High numbers of age-3 kokanee sampled in the lake, likely from BY 2001, first year of fall and net pen releases.
2004 Third full year of baseline data collection and creel survey. Second year of entrainment study. High numbers of age-2 kokanee sampled in the lake, likely from BY 2001, first year of fall and net pen releases.
2003 Second full year fo baseline data collection. Implemented an entrainment study to determine temporal and species specific fish loss from the lake via the irrigation canal at Dry Falls Dam. Second full year of lakewide creel survey.
2002 First full year of baseline data collection during seasonal lakewide water quality, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish surveys. First full year of the lakewide creel survey.
2001 Project start-up, including hiring staff, purchasing equipment,establishing data collection protocols and start of baseline data collection (water quality, species composition, fish deits and aging structures). Implemeted the first year of a creel survey

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: WDFW [no entry] Banks Lake Volunteer Net Pen Program The kokanee and rainbow trout net pens on Banks Lake are operated by volunteers and fish food and other O&M materials are purchased by the WDFW
BPA 199104600 Spokane Tribal (Galbr Sprgs) H The Banks Lake Project evaluates the kokanee production program for fish stocked in Banks Lake from the Spokane Tribal Hatchery.
BPA 199104700 Sherman Creek Hatchery - O&M Since Banks Lake shares water with Lake Roosevelt, the exchange of fish occurrs at an unkwon level. The Banks Lake Project evaluates and reports the presence of Lake Roosevelt marked kokanee that were produced by the Sherman Creek hatchery.
BPA 199500900 Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout N The Banks Lake Project evaluates and reports the presence of Lake Roosevelt tagged rainbow trout in Banks Lake. Fish from Lake Roosevelt can entrain through the pump/generating units into Banks Lake.
BPA 199501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhanceme Banks Lake Project staff have worked with Colville Tribal sub-contractors to evaluate fish stress and mortality in the Lake Roosevelt/Banks Lake pump/generating units.
BPA 199502800 Assessment of Fishery Improvem The Banks Lake Project shares equipment with the Moses Lake Project and the WDFW regional office including electrofishing boats, fyke nets and gill nets.
BPA 200102900 Ford Hatchery Improvement O&M The Banks Lake Project evaluates the kokanee production program for fish stocked in Banks Lake.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat Enhance access and spawning habitat in Northrup Creek and Northrup Beach to increase the contribution natural production of kokanee to the population. Crab Manage the lake level to provide optimal shoreline spawning and high fry emergent survival. Utilize a self-sustaining shoreline spawning kokanee. 185, 186
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s Monitor factors that affect kokanee survival in Banks Lake including predation, prey base competition with lake whitefish, and abiotic lake conditions. Crab Determine focal species interactions to maintain a mix species fishery. Determine secondary productivity. 185
Objective 3. Evaluate three kokanee release groups Spring fry, fall fingerlings and spring yearling release groups will be differentially marked to evaluate to the release strategy that yields the highest survival. Crab Determine levels of natural production and increase kokanee stocking to increase sport harvest. 186
Objective 4. Manage daily project operations Manage daily project operations including supervising staff and subcontractors. Create and submit reports to BPA regarding PISCES reports, accrual spending, and SOW packages. This includes status and annual reporting. Crab This objective is required to effectivley manage the project to evaluate the strategies listed for Banks Lake in the Subbasin plan. [Pg no blank]

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: Manage and Administer Projects Accrual and Metric Reporting, SOW Manage daily project operations including supervising staff and subcontractors. Create and submit reports to BPA regarding PISCES reports, accrual spending, and SOW packages. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $70,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Manage daily project operations
No Metrics for this Work Element

02: Produce Status Report Submission of Status Reports Quarterly project status reports will be submitted by deadlines agreed upon by WDFW and BPA. 12/31/2006 9/30/2009 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Manage daily project operations
No Metrics for this Work Element

03: Produce Annual Report Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Dependent on funding, this project will provide deliverables in the form of status and annual reports by deadlines established by WDFW and BPA. After the third year of the project, the project sponsor, along with project subcontractors, will draft and submit results for publication in a scientific journal. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $85,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 4. Manage daily project operations
No Metrics for this Work Element

04: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Obtain NEPA Clearance and other required Permits Work with WDFW, Washington State Parks, Bureau of Reclamation and BPA staff to obtain hydraulic permits, and SEPA and NEPA compliance documents to allow implementation of this project. 10/15/2006 9/30/2007 $2,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

05: Coordination Coordination and Planning for feasibility Coordinate within WDFW and with Washington State Parks, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, local fishing clubs and public interest groups to accept comments on design, feasibility and involvement in the spawning habitat enhancement project. 10/15/2006 9/30/2008 $2,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

06: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect physical stream and water data for feasibility study Water temperatures and velocities will be monitored prior to enhancement to quantify changes as positive or negative from original conditions. A comprehensive stream survey will be conducted to quantify current habitat parameters. Tests pits will be excavated to determine groundwater levels and surface soil stratigraphy. A portable pump will be used to determine drawdown and recharge rate for each pit to determine hyporheic water pressure. Based on these tests, judgments will be made by WDFW spawning channel experts on the feasibility of channel excavation. A shoreline spawning habitat survey will occur along Northrup Beach during the summer drawdown to identify sources of ground water flow and locations of suitable spawning gravels. Piezometers will be used, if feasible, to determine areas of upflow, water temperature and dissolved oxygen in any detected ground water. 12/1/2006 9/15/2007 $35,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

07: Install Fish Monitoring Equipment Install weir trap to collect spawning data for feasibility study A two-way panel weir box trap will be placed at the mouth of Northrup Creek on September 1, 2006 to determine if kokanee are ascending the creek, and provide temporal migration information. The BLFEP creel clerk will check the trap daily and captured fish will be released upstream following the collection of biological data (length, weight, and sex). 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Shoreline spawning habitat pilot study Four shoreline-spawning beds will be created along the Northrup Beach as a pilot study to evaluate their use by spawning kokanee. Each bed will be approximately 3 X 15 m meters and they will be placed adjacent to pre-existing gravel habitats. Snorkel/SCUBA surveys will be conducted following natural spawning to quantify the number of redds located on the artificial spawning beds versus the number over pre-existing gravels. The response variable will be the number of redds per meter of spawning habitat. Created spawning sites will be paired with natural gravel areas and a paired t-test will be used to determine significance. This small study will indicate if artificial shoreline spawning beds are feasible and if the scope should be expanded to the entire 0.5 km of shoreline. 6/1/2007 10/1/2007 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
* # of structures installed: 4 artificial spawning habitat beds

09: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Evaluate spawning success for feasibility study Depending on the number of redds constructed in Northrup Creek, a small subset will be capped to capture emergent kokanee fry. This will give preliminary estimates of egg to fry survival. Egg-to-fry survival will be estimated by dividing the number of fry trapped by the mean fecundity value of the population minus mean egg retention. 10/1/2007 12/1/2009 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

10: Produce Plan Produce Spawning Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Plan Create a feasible and cost effective construction plan for access and enhancement of Northrup Creek into a kokanee/rainbow trout spawning channel and Northrup Beach into a shoreline spawning bed. This will occur during the first year of the project (FY2007). The project sponsor will consult with kokanee and sockeye spawning channel construction and maintenance experts from the WDFW, British Columbia and other local agencies. 10/15/2006 9/30/2007 $45,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

11: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Northrup Creek Spawning Habitat Enhancement A sub-contractor, with channel design experience, will be hired to design and conduct on the ground excavating and enhancement. If feasible, the channel will be widened and deepened, pools will be created or enhanced for staging, long riffle/runs will be created and filled with an optimal gravel size mixture and the stream bank will be re-vegetated with native grasses, shrubs and trees. Dredging a channel in the Northrup embayment will allow access to the creek at low water elevations. If kokanee utilize the artificial spawning beds, then implementation of a large-scale shoreline spawning bed project will commence in the spring of FY2008. An optimal gravel mixture will be placed along a 0.5 km section of shoreline from a WDFW barge. The depth where gravel will be deposited and the depth of gravel laid will follow protocols outlined in Stober et al. (1979). The amount of gravel required will be determined once WDFW habitat and fisheries staff surveys the shoreline. 12/1/2007 9/1/2008 $300,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 2.5 km of spawning habitat enhancement

12: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor the environmental conditions present in the Banks Lake kokanee-spawning channel Routine monitoring of the environmental conditions in the surface waters of the channel will be performed. A digital flow meter, for example, will be used to obtain velocity, depth, and flow information while Onset tidbit recorders will be suspended in mid water to obtain surface water temperature data. Finally Imhoff Cones will be used to monitor changes in suspended sediment in the waters flowing through the channel. Environmental assessments of the hyporheic zone will also be conducted. In this case polycarbonate piezometers will be installed uniformly throughout the channel and a portable DO meter will be used once every 2 weeks to obtain data on intra-gravel oxygen levels. Six Onset tidbit recorders will be buried in the channel throughout its length to obtain intra-gravel water temperature information. Temporal changes in the channel’s gravel composition will be assessed by taking 20 grab samples of gravel using a McNeil Sampler (McNeil and Ahnell 1964). These gravel samples will be run through a set of standard Tyler screens enabling us to calculate the Fredle Index value of each sample. Methods developed by Rood (1998) were used to develop the number of gravel samples needed. 9/1/2008 9/30/2009 $20,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

13: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Evaluate egg-to-fry survival of kokanee placed into the Banks Lake spawning channel To evaluate egg-to-fry survival in naturally spawning fish, two egg deposition estimates must be made. First a potential egg deposition value (PED) is calculated. This metric relies on linkages between phenotypic traits such as body length or weight to estimate the fecundity of each spawning female. Approximately 20 to 30 female kokanee from Banks Lake having the same age at maturity will be artificially spawned to develop this relationship. Since fecundity can vary from one year to the next thus separate relationships will be generated each year. Either linear or multiple regression methods will be used to develop formulas that will be employed to estimate the fecundity of the females placed into the Banks Lake spawning channel. The second egg deposition estimate is referred to as actual egg deposition or AED. It equals PED minus any potentially viable eggs that a female retains at death. Egg retention values will be obtained from each female placed in the channel by retrieving females soon after death (<24 hr) and counting the number of eggs still remaining in the coelomic cavity. The AED values of each female will be summed to provide an estimate of the total number of eggs placed into the spawning channel. 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

14: Mark/Tag Animals Placing marks on all the fry produced from the Banks Lake spawning channel Strontium marking will be used to place permanent marks on all the fry produced by the channel by simply immersing them in a marking solution containing strontium chloride. 10/1/2009 11/1/2009 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 1. Enhance spawning habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

15: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect biotic and abiotic data Nearshore electrofishing, gill netting, and trap netting (Bonar et al. 2000) will be used in the fall to determine species composition, distribution and collect biological data. Captured fish will be measured (TL), weighed (g) and aging structures will be collected (scales, otoliths). Stomach contents will be collected from primary piscivores (walleye, bass, and burbot) and the primary planktivores (kokanee, lake whitefish). Kokanee will be examined for fin clips and the otolith will be saved for thermal mark examination. Offshore sampling will be conducted in the summer and fall, and details are discussed later in this proposal. 10/1/2006 8/1/2009 $350,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

16: Analyze/Interpret Data Diet analysis and bioenergetics modeling to estimate piscivory Fish prey will be identified to species using diagnostic bones. The blotted-dry wet weight proportion of each diet taxon will be determined and averaged within each species (Baldwin et al. 2003) by month. Growth (length- and weight-at-age) will be determined by scale, otolith, opercle and/or length frequency analysis depending on the species, age, and reliability of each structure. Diet proportions, prey caloric density (literature values), thermal experience and growth will be used in a mass balance bioenergetics model to estimate species-specific prey consumption. 12/15/2006 9/30/2009 $173,963
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

17: Analyze/Interpret Data Zooplankton Prey Limitations The size structure and species composition of collected zooplankton will be used to determine if zooplankton production is limited by bottom-up (primary production) or top-down (planktivory) (Brooks and Dodson 1965). The zooplankton consumption demand of stocked kokanee will be estimated by using a bioenergetics model (Hanson et al. 1997) and it will be compared to the available zooplankton biomass in Banks Lake (Beauchamp et al. 1995). Once the biomass of edible size and species of zooplankton is established, we will use the bioenergetics model to predict the additional number of ages 1-4 kokanee that can be supported by Banks Lake. Zooplankton samples will be collected by project sponsor but analyzed by a subcontractor. 12/1/2006 9/30/2009 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring

18: Analyze/Interpret Data Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen We will compare results to literature values for dissolved oxygen and temperature preferences and physiological tolerances, and relate fish distribution from hydroacoustics, trawling and netting to water quality parameters (from WE 1.3.1) to determine behavioral reactions to unfavorable conditions (Lueke and Teuscher 1994; Baldwin and Polacek 1999). 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring

19: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Banks Lake Creel Survey A non-uniform probability sampling design rove/access creel survey will be used to estimate total fishing pressure, catch-per-unit-effort (cpue), harvest-per-unit-effort, and total harvest of fish from Banks Lake. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $180,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Evaluate three kokanee release groups
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

20: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Conduct Hydroacoustic Surveys to Estimate Kokanee and whitefish abundance Hydroacoustic surveys will be used to determine kokanee abundance by extrapolating mobile hydroacoustic density to reservoir area in late July of each study year 7/1/2007 8/1/2009 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Stayus and Trend Monitoring

21: Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze Hydroacoustic Survey Data Density (fish/m3) will be calculated for each transect and transect densities will be averaged together for a reservoir wide estimate of fish density. Mean fish density will be multiplied by reservoir volume to estimate abundance. Two standard errors will be used to estimate the 95 % confidence interval of the acoustic abundance estimate. 9/1/2007 9/30/2009 $45,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend monitoring
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

22: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Kokanee and Rainbow Trout Exploitation Kokanee and rainbow trout harvest will be compared to reservoir-wide abundance to determine if the population is underutilized or overexploited. Abundance estimates will be used for different size groups to monitor age class strength over time. Harvest estimates will be obtained from an annual creel study. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 2. Monitor kokanee s
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

23: Analyze/Interpret Data Kokanee Thermal marking and fin clipping All the cultured kokanee released directly into Banks Lake will be thermally marked (by WDFW) and net pen reared kokanee will receive a left pelvic fin clip (Spokane Tribal Hatchery). Each release group will receive a code that will reflect its rearing and release strategy. Prior to being released, five fish from each group will be sacrificed to document the thermal codes they possess. 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Evaluate three kokanee release groups
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research

24: Analyze/Interpret Data Kokanee Thermal Mark Identification Kokanee otoliths will be collected for thermal mark identification during creel surveys and the lake-wide fall fish survey/kokanee collections. Otoliths will be stored in 95% ethanol and analyzed for treatment group origin at WDFW’s Otolith Laboratory in Olympia. A Chi-square analysis at the µ = 0.05 level will be used to test Hypothesis 3. Additionally, a marked to unmarked ratio will be used to evaluate the contribution of hatchery versus natural origin fish to overall kokanee population. 12/15/2006 9/30/2009 $20,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Objective 3. Evaluate three kokanee release groups
Primary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties Research


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 5 FTE's $201,468 $201,468 $201,468
Fringe Benefits [blank] $66,484 $66,484 $66,484
Supplies Material for Spawning Habitat in FY2008 $65,000 $100,000 $57,000
Travel [blank] $10,250 $10,250 $10,250
Capital Equipment [blank] $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other sub-contractors; engineering costs in FY08 for channel design and construction $30,500 $100,000 $30,500
Overhead 28.9% $108,374 $131,429 $106,054
Totals $482,076 $609,631 $471,756

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,563,463
Total Work Element budget$1,563,463

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
University Laborartory space $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW Equipment Storage $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW kokanee thermal marking $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW Fish aging $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW electrofishing boat $38,000 $38,000 $38,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW 22' gill netting boat $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW Field Office Lease $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $87,000 $87,000 $87,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$450,000 $450,000 M&E portion of spawning channel and shoreline spawning sites
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
For M&E of the spawning sites, the costs for staff, goods and services, and travel will be similar to costs in FY2009.
 
Termination Date Comments
none M&E can continue to evaluate at least 4 age classes ofkokanee using the spawning channel at Northrup Creek and enhanced shorline spawning site. The fisrt age class to use the spawning sites will be BY2009 resulting in the first adult returns in FY2011.
 
Final Deliverables
Final deliverables will be a comprehensive final project report to BPA and portions will be published in peer reviewed journals.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Under Review
Comments: Include project in review of kokanee projects through kokanee workshop. Funding to be identified and contingent on outcome of workshop. Consider moving the project to the Intermountain province.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: No subbasin plan

Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC Comments: The non-fundable element is the proposal to create a spawning channel for kokanee (withdrawn by sponsor in their response). The ISRP has serious misgivings about the project’s emphasis on creating a kokanee fishery by other means, as well, because significant populations of non-native, top-predator fishes exist in the lake. However, kokanee stocking could justifiably proceed under appropriate monitoring and evaluation, and in view of the sponsor’s revised proposal to manage angling to reduce the lake’s walleye population.

The project involves the problem-prone situation of an artificially created and artificially manipulated water body that contains an artificial assemblage of fishes, including species not native to the region. The lake functions in some unnatural ways to which the fish are not adapted, and some members of the fish assemblage are not adapted to interact well with each other. The sponsors' task of trying to manage this system to suit a diversity of angling interests is difficult indeed.

The project’s stated purpose is fishery mitigation for the loss of anadromous salmon. The proposal's main focus is on creating a kokanee fishery, secondarily rainbow trout, walleye, and bass. Its more specific goals involve increasing natural-origin kokanee (thus reducing fishery reliance on hatchery-origin kokanee), while maintaining “quality fisheries” for walleye, bass, and burbot. Toward this, and based on the project’s previous studies, the sponsors proposed two lines of work: (1) to continue studying water quality, food limitation, angling exploitation, predation by exotic fishes, and the effectiveness of hatchery kokanee releases (adaptive management implied) and (2) to increase the lake’s kokanee production by enhancing spawning habitat and improving access at Northrup Creek and adjacent shorelines.

The ISRP considered the idea of trying to boost kokanee production by creating an artificial spawning channel unsound, partly because a concentrated source of kokanee fry could attract walleye to the entry area, and thus much of the new production would just feed predators. In response, the sponsors withdrew that part of the proposal.

Moreover, the ISRP considered the original proposal's overall emphasis on kokanee scientifically unsound and thus not fundable because the sponsor maintains major fisheries for walleye and bass in the lake, and these are top predator species capable of preying on kokanee. The proposal indicated that the project’s studies to date found predation by walleye to be a limiting factor for kokanee in the lake. The narrative stated: "Predation has been identified as the predominate factor affecting survival of kokanee in Banks Lake. Annual kokanee losses to walleye predation are 13-17% . . . a conservative estimate since acute predation occurs during stocking events." Also, the proposal stated that smallmouth bass are about three times more abundant than walleye but did not mention their effects on kokanee.

The ISRP suggested that the effort to manage for a significant kokanee fishery in the lake halt, pending literature evidence from elsewhere that suggests kokanee can thrive in the face of predation by walleye and bass, species with which kokanee did not co-evolve. The ISRP suggested also that the sponsors should clearly eliminate alternative hypotheses for low numbers of kokanee before accepting the alternative that shortage of spawning habitat is the problem. The ISRP recognized that a strategy of eliminating walleye and bass from the lake probably would be impractical from a management standpoint and undesirable for many of the lake’s present anglers.

The ISRP rated the proposal as not fundable and explained that it did not request a response because the proposal presented enough information to determine, based on science, that the management strategy described had a very low probability of success. In other words, the project did not meet criteria for benefit to fish and wildlife.

The sponsors submitted a reasonably thorough response that showed thoughtful consideration of the issues. They dropped the idea of a kokanee spawning channel, but maintained that continued emphasis and study of kokanee stocking should continue. They argued, somewhat in contradiction to statements in the original proposal, that predation on kokanee by walleye is not great enough to impair the development of a viable kokanee population and fishery. They held that bass predation must be insignificant. They offered other evidence (mainly gray literature and personal communications) to support those positions, pointed to recent improvement in kokanee catch (probably due to changed stocking procedures), and said they could liberalize angling regulations so as to reduce the walleye population. Regarding bass predation, they contend that bass occupy shallow areas that do not overlap significantly with salmonid habitat of the same lake, that bass would not eat many salmonids, and that kokanee exist in other Washington lakes that contain bass.

On the other hand, the ISRP is aware of evidence that bass eat many rainbow trout in some California lakes. Furthermore, the sponsors have not yet truly measured predation by walleye and bass in Banks Lake. A related problem is that the sponsors can express the fish populations only in terms of relative size (percentage of total species composition) and do not know their numerical abundances. This is understandable in a large body of water that is difficult to sample for abundance estimates.

The ISRP recommended that the sponsors search literature for evidence that kokanee are compatible with walleye and bass. In an intensive search for this, the sponsors found little: the only reports on waters containing all three species together came from Lakes Roosevelt and Rufus Woods, where harvest and escapement goals for hatchery kokanee have not been achieved. The sponsors feel those situations do not apply to Banks Lake. The response stated: “We can find no literature to support [the ISRP] conclusion that these species [kokanee, walleye, smallmouth bass] are not compatible . . .” This isn’t surprising, for kokanee, a Pacific drainage species, did not coevolve with those Atlantic drainage species. There is, however, reason to expect low success in trying to maintain a kokanee fishery in the face of walleye and bass populations because kokanee are unlikely to be well adapted for coexistence with those predators.

The ISRP still has serious concern about the advisability of trying to manage for kokanee in a walleye and bass lake but believes the project could be funded in part to continue testing that effort.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC Comments: This proposal is for adding an “implementation phase” to the past investigation of Banks Lake fishery potential, in which the sponsor would try to boost kokanee production by creating an artificial spawning channel for the lake. The ISRP considers the kokanee plan scientifically unsound and thus not fundable because the sponsor maintains major fisheries for walleye and bass in the lake (as well as burbot population) and all of these species prey on kokanee.

The project’s studies to date have shown that predation by walleye is a limiting factor for kokanee in the lake. Bass are even more abundant than walleye and may be another major predation source. The Narrative p 8 (near bottom) states: "Predation has been identified as the predominate factor affecting survival of kokanee in Banks Lake. Annual kokanee losses to walleye predation are 13-17% (Polacek et al. 2004); however, this is a conservative estimate since acute predation occurs during stocking events (Polacek, unpublished data)." However, it is said at end of the Abstract that and overall project goal is to "maintain quality fisheries for walleye (Sanders vitreus), bass (Micropterus spp.), and burbot (Lota lota)." It is indicated on p 2 that smallmouth bass are about 3 times more abundant than walleye, butthe effect of small mouth bass on kokanee is not mentioned in the project history.

Moreover, even if the proposed artificial channel were to increase kokanee reproduction, a concentrated source of kokanee fry could attract walleye to the entry area. In other words, the new production would just feed the existing predators. The effort to manage for a significant kokanee fishery in the lake should halt, pending literature evidence from elsewhere that suggests kokanee can thrive in the face of predation by walleye and bass, species with which kokanee did not co-evolve.

In short, the proposal should clearly eliminate alternative hypotheses for low numbers of kokanee before accepting the alternative that shortage of spawning habitat is the problem. The ISRP recognizes that although it was not mentioned in the proposal, a strategy of eliminating walleye and bass from the lake probably would be impractical from a management standpoint and undesirable for the lake’s present anglers. It would be advisable for the sponsor henceforth to manage the lake as a fishery for walleye and bass, given the fact that those non-native species dominate the sport-fish community.

A detail: The proposal’s method dealing with investigation of predation states: “Fish prey [from stomachs] will be identified to species . . .” but the sponsors present no study design for sampling the predators.

The ISRP is not requesting a response, because the proposal presented enough information to determine, based on science, that the management strategy described has a very low probability of success; i.e., the proposal does not meet the ISRP criteria of benefit to fish and wildlife.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.