Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Project Number:
1994-047-00
Title:
Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Summary:
This project is proposed as on-site, partial mitigation for impacts of Albeni Falls Dam. Fall draw downs of the naturally created Lake Pend Oreille greatly reduced the amount of shoreline spawning habitat for kokanee, the primary forage of bull trout and rainbow trout. Albeni Falls Dam also inundated about 26 miles of the Pend Oreille River and the lower two miles of the Clark Fork River. Thus, both river and lake habitats have been changed by the operation of the dam. The goal of this project is to recover the sport fisheries that were impacted by the federal hydropower system.

Until recently, fall draw downs that negatively influenced spawning habitat were the primary limiting factor for kokanee. While lake level management is still critically important and a major player in this project, predation manifested itself as the primary limiting factor during the past decade. This study has documented that predation on kokanee is a threat to the Lake Pend Oreille ecosystem. Exceptionally high predation levels by lake trout and rainbow trout could extirpate kokanee from the lake if left unchecked. Without kokanee, lake trout and bull trout would be in direct competition for a limited food supply. In Flathead Lake, Montana and Priest Lake, Idaho, lake trout replaced bull trout as the dominant predator species once the kokanee forage base was gone. We therefore propose the objective of restoring the bull trout population so that it is healthy enough to provide a harvest of 1,000 fish annually in the lake. To accomplish this objective we propose several tasks, including the direct removal of lake trout using trap nets and gill nets. Hansen et al. (2006) estimated that lake trout are currently being exploited at a level that results in annual mortality in excess of 50%. This is beyond the threshold where lake trout populations begin to decline. Continued lake trout removal is needed to cause a substantial decline in lake trout abundance. Rainbow trout are the second most abundant kokanee predator in the lake. Management actions have been enacted to reduce rainbow trout abundance. These actions include allowing unlimited angler harvest, allowing the use of four fishing rods, opening tributary streams to fishing, and paying anglers a $15 per fish bounty. The Avista Corporation is cost-sharing on efforts to reduce kokanee predation by funding a bounty program for lake and rainbow trout harvested by anglers and by funding a large portion of the lake trout netting efforts. The current study includes work aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of predator reduction efforts. This includes evaluating the responses of predator populations and the kokanee population. In 2007, kokanee survival was at a record low and the population was on the verge of collapse. Since then kokanee survival has improved substantially, which indicates that predator removal efforts to reduce the influence of predation on kokanee are working. If these higher survival rates can be sustained, predation will no longer limit kokanee population growth. This will allow lake level management to be fully tested, without the confounding of high predation that has occurred in recent years.

Field work in this proposal is largely to be conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. However, several subcontracts are proposed for portions of the work. The Washington Department of Fisheries will examine kokanee otoliths to determine whether they are of wild or hatchery origin. Operation of gill nets and trap nets to remove lake trout will be conducted by Hickey Bros., LLC. A graduate project conducted by the University of Idaho will evaluate nutrient dynamics and the influence they have on kokanee survival. Additionally, the University of Idaho will conduct a graduate study to evaluate kokanee egg survival to emergence at different lake elevations and in various habitat conditions. This work will supplement existing egg-to-fry survival estimates. Finally, we will continue a sediment coring project subcontracted to TerraGraphics, Inc. to assess productivity changes that have occurred over time in Lake Pend Oreille and implications this has on kokanee survival. This work is part of the broader research we are conducting on nutrient dynamics and factors influencing kokanee survival.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1994
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Pend Oreille 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Kokanee
OBSOLETE-Trout, Lake
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Cover photo

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 1

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of capture and tagging of 54 lake trout implanted with acoustic transmitters in Lake Pend Oreille during 2010. Lake trout tagged during the spring were separated between the north and south sections of the lake (denoted by the dotted line). Multiple fish were tagged at locations designated by symbols for the fall season. The locations of three spawning sites are shown.

Figure Name: Figure 9

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 41

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout prior to spawning (July 19 to September 1, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho.

Figure Name: Figure 11

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 43

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout during spawning (September 13 to October 20, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho.

Figure Name: Figure 12

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 44

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout at the three spawning sites: Windy Point (A), Evans Landing (B), and Bernard Beach (C) during spawning (September 13 to October 20, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Circles and triangles represent lake trout tagged on the north and south sections of the lake, respectively.

Figure Name: Figure 13a

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 45

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout at the three spawning sites: Windy Point (A), Evans Landing (B), and Bernard Beach (C) during spawning (September 13 to October 20, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Circles and triangles represent lake trout tagged on the north and south sections of the lake, respectively.

Figure Name: Figure 13b

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 45

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout at the three spawning sites: Windy Point (A), Evans Landing (B), and Bernard Beach (C) during spawning (September 13 to October 20, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Circles and triangles represent lake trout tagged on the north and south sections of the lake, respectively.

Figure Name: Figure 13c

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 45

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380

Locations of tagged lake trout after spawning (October 27 to December 9, 2010) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho.

Figure Name: Figure 14

Document ID: P124651

Document: Lake Pend Oreille Research, 2010; Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project; 3/10 - 2/11

Page Number: 46

Project: 1994-047-00

Contract: 52380


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $1,000,995 $1,000,995 $1,000,995 $1,000,995 $927,385

General $1,000,995 $1,000,995 $1,000,995 $927,385
FY2017 (Current) $922,995 $922,995 $922,995 $922,995 $557,826

General $922,995 $922,995 $922,995 $557,826
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

General $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $1,000,995 From: General FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $1,000,995 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $78,000 To: General June 2016 Transfers 06/21/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 61 %
FY2011 62 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 47 %
FY2008 44 %
FY2007 44 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005026 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation - Land Acquisition Active $1,994 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
72658 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-047-00 EXP LAKE PEND OREILLE FISHERY RECOVERY Issued $1,000,995 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):21
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:24
Avg Days Late:5

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4003 16828, 25744, 32104, 36475, 41509, 46612, 52380, 57288, 60656, 64992, 69290, 72658 1994-047-00 LAKE PEND OREILLE FISHERY RECOVERY Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 03/2001 03/2001 Pending 48 159 0 0 24 183 86.89% 0
BPA-005026 FY10 Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation - Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 48 159 0 0 24 183 86.89% 0


Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1994-047-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The response was very thorough and well organized. Each issue raised in the previous ISRP review was explicitly addressed. The additional information on previous studies that have been conducted as part of the effort to restore the focal fish species in Lake Pend Oreille was especially helpful in clarifying the questions raised by the ISRP in the previous review.

The ISRP agrees that working in this large natural lake poses many difficult challenges, but the responses indicate that IDFG is making a good faith effort to incorporate the latest information into their studies and have enlisted the help of very qualified specialists. The ISRP appreciates that additional details about the results of previous investigations have been incorporated into the proposal. Links to annual reports and other reports summarizing data are useful, but they do add to the difficulty of assessing scientific merit when a link must be followed. Where possible, concise summaries of main findings, in addition to the links, are very much appreciated and make the review process more efficient. We also appreciate that the field methods pertaining to this study in Monitoringmethods.org have been reclassified so that details are now accessible.

Overall, the ISRP is satisfied that this project will continue to generate useful data on the management of Lake Pend Oreille and its fisheries, and are confident that the sponsors have thought carefully about addressing these issues in this complex lentic ecosystem.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation project is a good example of a study where project staff has done an excellent job of seeking outside assistance in tackling a very tough scientific problem. While the project title suggests that it focuses on kokanee, it is clear that the project's scope has broadened to other fishes as well as the limnological dynamics of the Pend Oreille ecosystem itself. This project is almost 20 years old, and a publication summarizing what has been learned over the last two decades would be a valuable contribution, as well as useful in informing fishery managers in other large lake systems.

First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

The Lake Pend Oreille fishery has received a lot of attention because it focuses on the historically large non-native kokanee population, which is in decline although apparently recovering slowly, as well as a trophy rainbow and bull trout fishery, which is also depressed. Many restoration actions are occurring simultaneously, and it will be difficult to determine the efficacy of individual program elements on both the harvest and conservation objectives. Nevertheless, this project has contributed valuable information on the ecosystem processes supporting the lake's salmonid populations over the last decade, and it is likely to provide useful data in the future.

The ISRP requests clarification on several points before providing a final recommendation.

  1. What is the likely role of lake whitefish in reducing abundance of Mysis?
  2. Additional justification is requested for adding spawning gravel to select shorelines to increase kokanee spawning.
  3. A summary of what has been learned over the past 15 years of management actions in the context of the overall objective of increasing harvest is needed.
  4. What has been learned from Lake Pend Oreille research that has helped IDFG balance conservation and harvest objectives?
  5. What are likely reasons why rainbow trout have increased in abundance by 50% from 2009 to 2010?
  6. Other questions and concern are embedded in the comments provided below. The ISRP suggests the sponsors examine these items as a response is prepared.

Apart from specific questions, the ISRP feels the restoration of native resident bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in Lake Pend Oreille deserves additional attention. This proposal devotes little attention to these species, even though other proposals in the region do. For example, there may be adfluvial populations of cutthroat trout that could or do provide important sport fisheries, and management could consider restoration actions in Lake Pend Oreille’s tributary habitats. Ongoing lake trout suppression would also benefit these other native species, but increased kokanee production would not likely benefit whitefish or most cutthroat trout

See the ISRP’s programmatic comments on fish stocking.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project has been in place for a long time, and the plan of work was reviewed by the ISRP in 2006, when it was given a favorable assessment. It is important to note that Lake Pend Oreille represents a large natural lake with a highly altered fish community. Of the three primary focal species, two are not native (kokanee and Gerrard stock rainbow trout) and the third (bull trout) is primarily of interest from a conservation standpoint, not a harvest standpoint. Additionally, the food web in Lake Pend Oreille has been strongly affected by the invasion of a non-native zooplankton (Mysis diluviana), which has acted as a competitor with kokanee and also helped to fuel the expansion of the non-native lake trout population, a significant predator on mysids as well as kokanee and juveniles of other salmonid species. As with many large lakes with increasing human development in the watershed, management challenges in Lake Pend Oreille are complex.

The project sponsors have done a good job of describing the relationship of this project to other regional resident fish management efforts, and their description of the technical background was also well done.

The proposal makes clear that recovery of the Pend Oreille fishery is the project's primary goal. Conservation of the two native salmonid species, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout, is acknowledged in the work, but the primary emphasis is either research that addresses factors limiting kokanee and trophy trout recovery or habitat improvements that benefit kokanee reproductive success, such as addition of spawning gravel. Reduction of the lake's population of lake trout, generally viewed as a negative influence in the Pend Oreille ecosystem, also figures prominently in the work.

As mentioned above, management challenges are complex and restoring a desired balance of species, that is a balance that favors angler harvest of kokanee and trophy trout, will require that a number of potential limiting factors be addressed simultaneously. This will essentially mean a trial and error approach, and that is what IDFW have been doing for the last 15 years. A strong monitoring program will be essential for detecting the signal of programs such as lake trout reduction, winter lake level manipulation, kokanee stocking adjustments, and possible nutrient additions.

The role of lake whitefish in reducing abundance of Mysis is mentioned once but is not addressed again. Could this be important?

The objective to increase kokanee spawning success by adding spawning gravel to select shorelines needs additional scientific justification. When gravel is added in streams or lakes without addressing the hydrogeomorphic factors that create clean spawning gravel, for example upwelling and wave action, the usual result is that the gravel simply becomes unsuitable, requiring either more gravel or manual cleaning, all at great expense. Additionally, we wonder whether studies of kokanee egg survival in the laboratory and in boxes buried in lake substrate will answer the question of interest: what conditions are necessary for high survival, and how does survival vary with sediment deposition? It is clear that survival should be low when sediment is high, but at moderate levels of sediment, it is not clear whether human-placed egg boxes or eggs monitored in the laboratory will mimic those from egg pockets placed by female fish sufficiently to generate useful data. 

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The proposal does a good job of summarizing the administrative accomplishments of the project. More details could have been given on results to date. A single graph was presented showing lake trout abundance from 1999 to 2008 but with only 5 years sampling data, while it would have been helpful to have seen similar summaries as graphs or tabular data for the other salmonid species. Over the last 15 years a variety of management actions have been implemented such as lake trout netting, experimental winter drawdowns, hatchery operations, and angler programs. A summary of what has been learned from these actions in the context of the overall objective of increasing harvest is needed. It does appear that predator control has had some success, but what about other efforts? Also, there was little mention of warm-water fishes. Have these introduced fishes had negligible impact on focal species in other areas of the lake?

More information is also needed on how the results of the Lake Pend Oreille research have been incorporated into management changes. In particular, the potential for conflict between conservation and harvest objectives needs additional clarification. What has been learned from the research that has helped IDFG balance these two important objectives?

Other questions on accomplishments include:

Why have rainbow trout increased in abundance by 50% from 2009 to 2010? Is this difference significant, or are the confidence intervals around these estimates wide? If the difference is real, and not owing to high variability, then what is the explanation – high recruitment rates of small fish?

Lake trout marking – lake trout are reported as being marked in 2011 to estimate abundance by mark-recapture, but in the rest of the proposal all the lake trout were removed. When and where were these lake trout marked, how many, and of what sizes?

Management changes have focused on better targeting lake trout removal efforts in response to new data, and thereby reducing bull trout bycatch. The project sponsors acknowledge pressure from kokanee and rainbow trout anglers to increase abundance of these fishes and expand the fisheries, but how has this pressure driven management decisions as opposed to a focus on conservation and restoration of resident native fishes?

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

It is clear that the food web dynamics in the lake are changing, but it also seems clear that the primary focal species have not returned to a level of abundance that support harvest objectives. There is no question that the studies proposed here will help address some of the most important problems; however, the proposal itself did not supply very many details about the results of previous management experiments, with the possible exception of the lake trout netting program. Sorting out the benefits of the various initiatives including predator control, habitat improvements, hatchery releases, and nutrient manipulations will be very difficult when they are all happening at the same time and will require very creative field experiments and analyses.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

Because this project has a long history and Lake Pend Oreille has been intensively studied, the suite of potentially limiting factors has been adequately characterized. The project also seems to be well integrated into other work taking place in the Pend Oreille watershed.

The questions being asked specific to kokanee restoration seem appropriate, for example, where do lake trout spawn and at what locations in their daily or seasonal movements will they be particularly vulnerable to capture? Additional work is needed on understanding the role of winter drawdown in regulating kokanee reproductive success, whether physical addition of gravel along shoreline spawning areas can be cost-effective, and whether deliberate nutrient supplementation can achieve desired food web benefits. Fortunately, the proposal contains elements that address these matters.

The proposal did not supply much detail regarding how salmonid releases from hatcheries would be carried out to maximize learning opportunities nor did it give many details about existing or planned monitoring efforts except for the acoustic tracking work on lake trout, which was adequately covered. It was also unclear how project staffs are exchanging information with other RME practitioners in the region, although the explicit call for an annual science review meeting to discuss results is an excellent idea.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The ISRP had several questions relative to project deliverables:

The proposal did not specify metrics and indicators in very much detail for some of the deliverables. Often the metrics were described in general terms, but not in a way that particular measurement protocols could be identified or assumed. Many of the protocols and methods in MonitoringMethods.org were in draft form and did not contain sufficient detail for scientific review.

The proposal also lacked information on what would be considered reference conditions for some of the deliverables. For example, if gravel is added to a kokanee spawning area, what would the reference condition be, pre-gravel enhancement egg survival or egg survival in an adjacent spawning area without gravel addition?

Can annual exploitation rates be accurately determined if only 30 lake trout are tagged with acoustic tags per year?

We were unsure why a gear efficiency study is necessary. Would it be more cost effective to buy a bigger boat and trawl and simply increase efficiency this way?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:38:06 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (3/7/2012)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-NPCC-20111129
Project: 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-1994-047-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2017.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1994-047-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: M&E, habitat, predator removal in LPO; fishery managers others authorized/required; need confirmation that cost share is reasonable.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1994-047-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a well-written proposal for continuation of work that has been productive. With the exception of the kokanee stocking, which both the sponsors and the ISRP question, the work is appropriate. There are a lot of challenges in these large lake systems. They have published work, gained understanding, and moved on. Earlier, they looked at recruitment problems with a lake level experiment looking at gravel spawning. Now they feel they have good recruitment. The study now is looking primarily at predation. Rainbow and lake trout are significant predators.

The proposal provides a good background for both the lake level work for kokanee spawning and the additional proposed studies to balance kokanee with other species. The problems are generally well described insofar as they are understood. The probable depression of reproductive fitness of wild kokanee by interbreeding with hatchery kokanee is not discussed.

The rationale includes regional bull trout conservation efforts, subbasin plan, IDFG five-year plans, and the Fish and Wildlife Program. The conceptual framework presented is helpful. The section is beautifully organized -- refers to specific plan sections for each task.

The proposal cites relationships to other Pend Oreille projects and similar project at Upper Priest Lake. The discussion does not adequately (if at all) link to proposed project 2007-060-00 (Lake Pend Oreille Invasive Fish), which would seem to deal with a major influence on matters that 1994-047-00 is trying to address. The project history gives an excellent overview showing how a well-planned program can, in 10 years, gain significant insight into a very complex system that is exceptionally difficult to sample. Map and figures were appreciated.

Objectives are nicely described and mostly justified, with good hypothesis testing in a challenging situation. Specifically, objectives 1, 2, and 3 are appropriate biological objectives. Objective 5 is for information dissemination. Objective 4, concerning kokanee stocking is the least justified and might be omitted. Research results of this project indicate that stocking hatchery-produced kokanee depresses egg-to-fry survival of wild kokanee (supposedly by stimulating excessive predation). The project should monitor possible increase of wild kokanee after the stocking program ceases and as efforts are continued to reduce rainbow trout, the main predator on kokanee (and to reduce other non-native predators). It appears there are too many objectives, i.e., the sponsor is trying to manage and measure too many things. Eliminating the stocking program should simplify matters and halt a counterproductive influence on the fishery. Methods are generally well described.

The project provides annual workshops, good communications, and good reports with an excellent link. The bottom line, after some very sound work, is that they are still trying to show real benefit to kokanee, bull trout and rainbow. Success with kokanee spawning management has led to realization that the species mix needs fixing, especially non-native lake trout.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-047-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1994-047-00 - Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Andrew Dux Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Cecilia Brown Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Amy Mai Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Claire McClory Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Kline Interested Party Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)