Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Pend Oreille/Priest Exotic Fish Species Suppression and Native Fish Protection |
Proposal ID | 24004 |
Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Charles E. Corsi |
Mailing address | 2750 Kathleen Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 |
Phone / email | 2087691414 / ccorsi@idfg.state.id.us |
Manager authorizing this project | Greg Tourtlotte, IDFG |
Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Upper |
Short description | Protect threatened stocks of native bull and westslope cutthroat trout in the Priest and Pend Oreille lakes watersheds by removing lake and brook trout, and implementing measures to prevent recolonization. |
Target species | Bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout in both the upper Pend Oreille and Priest portions of the Pend Oreille subbasin |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
48.1565 |
-116.3342 |
Lake Pend Oreille |
48.4843 |
-116.9015 |
Priest Lake |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
1997 |
Identified ratio of bull trout to lake trout in Upper Priest Lake, assessed size and age structure of lake trout population, telemetry on lake trout to assess movment between Priest Lake and Upper Priest Lake (project funded by USFWS and IDFG). |
1998 |
Selectively gillnetted @ 1000 lake trout from Upper Priest Lake, improving bull trout:lake trout ratio from 1:80 to 1:6 (funded by USFWS and IDFG). |
1998 |
Surveyed Upper Priest tributaries for sympatric populations of brook and bull trout, removing 90% of brook trout from two streams (funded by USFWS and IDFG). |
1998 |
Population estimates of lake trout and bull trout completed in Lake Pend Oreille (BPA funded project). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
9798065 |
Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project |
The proposed project will complement the Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project by assessing the potential for suppressing a significant predator (lake trout) on kokanee; also additional data on predators. Hydroacoustic equipment will be shared. |
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.Increase bull and cutthroat trout by removing lake trout from Upper Priest Lake, and prevent reinvasion of lake trout. |
d. identify, install, and monitor lake trout barrier |
1 |
$20,000 |
|
2.Assess the status of lake trout in Priest Lake and potential for suppression to improve native and sport fisheries |
a. assess lake trout abundance with hydroacoustics |
2 |
$1,500 |
|
3.Experimental use of deepwater trapnets to assess Lake Pend Oreille lake trout and potential for suppression to preserve fisheries. |
a. deploy and assess efficacy of deepwater trapnets |
2 |
$70,000 |
Yes |
|
c. develop a method for assessing lake trout abundance using hydroacoustics |
2 |
$50,000 |
|
4.Suppress brook trout in Priest and Pend Oreille tributaries to benefit native fish. |
a. assess previous efforts at brook trout suppression |
2 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
|
b. identify additional tributaries and implement suppression |
1 |
$35,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1.Increase cutthroat and bull trout in Upper Priest Lake and tributaries |
2003 |
2006 |
$0 |
2.Assess status of Priest Lake lake trout and potential for sport and native fish |
2003 |
2003 |
$1,500 |
3.Lake Pend Oreille lake trout suppression |
2003 |
2003 |
$120,000 |
4.Brook trout suppression to benefit native fish in Priest and Pend Oreille watersheds |
2003 |
2003 |
$5,000 |
5. Genetic mapping of native species in Upper Priest watershed |
|
|
$0 |
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 |
1.Increase bull and cutthroat trout by removing lake trout from Upper Priest Lake, and prevent reinvasion of lake trout. |
a. gillnet lake trout |
5 |
$70,000 |
|
|
c. population modeling |
1 |
$1,000 |
|
2.Assess the status of lake trout in Priest Lake and potential for suppression to improve native and sport fisheries |
b. creel survey and exploitation assessment |
2 |
$30,000 |
|
|
c. lake trout population modeling |
1 |
$1,000 |
|
3.Experimental use of deepwater trapnets to assess Lake Pend Oreille lake trout and potential for suppression to preserve fisheries. |
a. deploy and assess efficacy of deepwater trapnets |
3 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. assess the existing population structure and ecological role of lake trout. |
1 |
$50,000 |
|
|
c. develop a method for assessing lake trout abundance using hydroacoustics |
3 |
$0 |
|
|
d. encourage increased lake trout harvest with derby prize money |
5 |
$10,000 |
|
4.Suppress brook trout in Priest and Pend Oreille tributaries to benefit native fish. |
b. identify additional tributaries and implement suppression |
4 |
$0 |
Yes |
5.Complete genetic mapping of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in the Priest watershed. |
a. collect additional samples and have them analyzed |
1 |
$30,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1.Increase cutthroat and bull trout in Upper Priest Lake and tributaries |
2003 |
2006 |
$300,000 |
2.Assess status of Priest Lake lake trout and potential for sport and native fish |
2003 |
2006 |
$63,500 |
3.Lake Pend Oreille lake trout suppression |
2003 |
2006 |
$285,000 |
4.Brook trout suppression to benefit native fish in Priest and Pend Oreille watersheds |
2003 |
2006 |
$195,000 |
5.Genetic mapping of native species in Upper Priest watershed |
|
|
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|
$95,000 | $155,500 | $135,500 | $165,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
1.Increase bull and cutthroat trout by removing lake trout from Upper Priest Lake, and prevent reinvasion of lake trout. |
b. monitor target species response |
5 |
$25,000 |
|
|
d. identify, install, and monitor lake trout barrier |
4 |
$0 |
|
2.Assess the status of lake trout in Priest Lake and potential for suppression to improve native and sport fisheries |
a. assess lake trout abundance with hydroacoustics |
3 |
$0 |
|
3.Experimental use of deepwater trapnets to assess Lake Pend Oreille lake trout and potential for suppression to preserve fisheries. |
|
0 |
$0 |
Yes |
4.Suppress brook trout in Priest and Pend Oreille tributaries to benefit native fish. |
a. assess previous efforts at brook trout suppression |
5 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. model response of brook trout to suppression, develop suppression plan, monitor native species response |
5 |
$50,000 |
|
5.Complete genetic mapping of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in the Priest watershed. |
|
0 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|
$68,000 | $69,500 | $69,500 | $69,500 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
Personnel |
FTE: 3 - 1 full time biologist (2080 hrs@18.59/hr) 3-8mo. techs (4160 hrs@11.53/hr) |
$86,632 |
Fringe |
35% |
$30,321 |
Supplies |
camera, nets, shockers, miscellaneous field gear, computers, office supplies, tags, prize $, etc. |
$46,000 |
Travel |
per diem, attendance at meetings and conferences |
$4,000 |
Indirect |
IDFG overhead at @21% |
$76,547 |
Capital |
Pick-up truck, weir with strobe lights |
$37,000 |
Subcontractor |
for deepwater trapnet deployment and operation, brook trout suppression, genetics |
$140,000 |
Other |
Equipment rental, mileage, boat gas |
$28,000 |
| $448,500 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $448,500 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $448,500 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed, including a map of the system. Much of the discussion in the proposal was relatively site specific and a map with key water bodies and landmarks referred to in the text would have facilitated review of the proposed work.
A better-defined plan is needed that focuses on the upper lake first and lays out a sequential strategy, rather than the proposed shotgun approach throughout the watershed. The overall objectives of the proposal are worthwhile, as it is clear that lake trout and brook trout are having detrimental effects on bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout populations. Nevertheless, both proposal and presentation indicated the efforts would be spread somewhat equally among Upper Priest, Priest, and Pend Oreille. A more biologically defensible approach would be to focus in priority order on suppression and removal of exotics from the Upper Priest Lake system before moving downstream to Priest and Pend Oreille lakes.
The sponsors should consider focusing efforts on cleaning the Upper Priest Lake and its tributaries of lake and brook trout entirely, and installation of a complete passage barrier in the Thorofare area. If the barrier has downstream and upstream trapping capabilities, the barrier could be used to remove any downstream migrating lake trout, while passing migrating westslope cutthroat trout or bull trout up or down as needed. The proposal focuses on lake trout control, but only minimally on brook trout removal, which may prove the more difficult to control or eradicate. The proposed work needs to be much more detailed and aggressive on brook trout removal. This is the weakest part of the proposal. Consideration should be made after these efforts are successful to designate the upper Priest watershed as a native fish refuge. Restoration efforts would then more appropriately move downstream into Priest Lake, then into Pend Oreille.
Recommendation:
Urgent (High Priority)
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Development of hydroacoustic methodology should be well coordinated with Project 24001 and could be restricted to one or the other projects. High priority within the draft USFWS bull trout recovery plan. This project is important in developing lake trout management methodology options which pose the number one risk to bull trout populations in this province. Sustainability may be contingent on actively continuing the project. Since development of the proposal, the USFWS has indicated that they may provide cost share for this project in the future. Objective 6, task 5 is covered under Project Number 24008 (this budget has been reduced by $30,000 for FY 2002).
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 6, 2001
Comment:
Fundable in part. Specifically, Objective 1a looks ok. 1b marginal; 1c, and 1d are not fundable. The reviewers were neutral on objectives 2 - 4; there will likely be some benefits in terms of acquiring knowledge.
The response made some good changes in the prioritization of project tasks. We agree with the logic of giving highest priority to removing lake trout from Upper Priest Lake. However, because of the lack of control of lake trout in Lower Priest Lake, the efforts in Upper Priest will likely be for naught without a complete barrier between the two lakes (in the Thorofare). The proposed approach will not likely be successful; an incomplete barrier will not achieve the goals. It would likely take a complete barrier to meet the project goals.
The key to success of this project as proposed will clearly be the placement and maintenance of a barrier to lake trout in the Thorofare. But the proposal would expend a lot of money for an undescribed system. There is a real leap of faith here, and a convincing case is not made that the mystery structure will be effective, largely because of the perceived need to build something that allows boat passage.
The brook trout component and modeling are not adequately justified; the results do not warrant the effort and should not be funded. The point is made in the response that dealing with brook trout in streams in the Upper Priest watershed should be done in a deliberate and measured fashion. True. But it might be critical to more aggressively prioritize streams and ensure those with strong cutthroat populations are given adequate protection now to avoid the need for costly remedial work in the future. Modeling as proposed would appear to be largely unneeded, with more attention being paid to practicality of brook trout removal as done in Montana. This effort is still too weak to merit funding.
Recommendation:
Fundable after Subbasin Planning
Date:
May 30, 2001
Comment:
This project should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to the ISRP/CBFWA review comments.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 19, 2001
Comment:
A new proposal (24004) for measures to suppress exotic species in Priest Lake was a high priority CBFWA recommendation but received only conditional approval from the ISRP (p. 19). The ISRP's review found merit in the project concept (constructing a barrier to fish passage between Upper and Lower Priest Lake), but said that constructing an effective barrier that would still allow boat passage would be a "leap of faith." The ISRP found four of the project objectives fundable, one marginal, and two not fundable.
Council recommendation: The Council concludes that the ISRP review noted sufficiently severe questions about the proposal that the project should not be initiated at this time.
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Mar 25, 2002
Comment:
Consistent with Council recommendation, BPA does not intend to fund.