FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22060
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 |
|---|---|
| 22060 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Feasibility Of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho |
| Proposal ID | 22060 |
| Organization | U. S. Geological Survey/Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (USGS/KTOI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gary Barton |
| Mailing address | 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 |
| Phone / email | 2534283600 / gbarton@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Sue Ireland, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
| Short description | State-of-the art methods used to design scenarios and assess feasibility to enhance white sturgeon spawning substrate habitat, Kootenai R., ID. Study temporal/transient changes in sediment type, bed form, and erosion/deposition of spawning substrate. |
| Target species | Kootenai River white sturgeon (ESA) population and other native fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.9999 | -116.5027 | Kootenai River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 6 | $81,160 |
| Fringe | $19,910 | |
| Supplies | Survey grade sounding transducers and differential GPS system | $20,000 |
| Travel | $8,000 | |
| Indirect | $120,930 | |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: USGS Senior Research Scientists | $50,000 |
| $300,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $300,000 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $300,000 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S.Geological Survey | Technical Support | $105,000 | cash |
| Kootenai Tribe of Idaho | Boat and fuel | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
The proposal would use the USGS bathymetry survey system to evaluate bedform movement in sturgeon spawning areas, with the idea being to develop better physical characterizations of habitat that would be used to foster improved egg incubation. The technology allows computer animation of bedform movement. Sediment transport modeling would then be used to allow prediction of conditions suitable for control of characteristics to produce optimal spawning and incubation habitat. From a physical sciences standpoint this is a solid proposal with fairly innovative sediment science, but reviewers are not convinced this is the best way to assess and address white sturgeon spawning limitations. This is an innovative proposal for the basin even though the same type of sediment dynamics study has been conducted elsewhere. However, the case is not made persuasively that sediment dynamics controls white sturgeon spawning and egg survival. It would seem important to make the biology-sediment linkage more strongly before undertaking a very detailed sediment profile and transport study. Alternative hypotheses for sturgeon spawning should be explored before this work is initiated. The ISRP has seen this proposal or slight modifications twice before in previous proposals for work on white sturgeon spawning in the Kootenai River. Because this work was once part of the Kootenai River white sturgeon studies, but has not been continued in that project suggests that support from the biologists may be lacking or at least lukewarm. The Panel considers the proposal fundable at medium priority.Comment:
This project is a high priority for recovery of endangered Kootenai white sturgeon. ISRP may not be aware of new information that indicates fine sediments may overlay spawning substrate.Comment:
This project is a high priority for recovery of endangered Kootenai white sturgeon. ISRP may not be aware of new information that indicates fine sediments may overlay spawning substrate.