FY 2000 proposal 198806400
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 |
---|---|
198806400 Narrative | Narrative |
198806400 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture |
Proposal ID | 198806400 |
Organization | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Susan Ireland |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 1269 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 |
Phone / email | 2082673620 / ireland@kootenai.org |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
Short description | Prevent extinction, preserve existing gene pool, and begin rebuilding healthy age classes of the endangered white sturgeon in the Kootenai River using conservation aquaculture techniques with wild broodstock. |
Target species | white sturgeon, kokanee, burbot |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
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 |
---|---|
1991 | Monitored wild white sturgeon reproduction and recruitment |
1991 | Built experimental hatchery |
1991 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1992 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1992 | Released offspring from 1991 year class into the Kootenai River |
1993 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1993 | Performed kokanee spawning surveys |
1994 | Released offspring from 1992 year class into the Kootenai River |
1994 | Monitored juvenile releases |
1994 | Performed kokanee spawning surveys |
1995 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1995 | Monitored wild sturgeon reproduction during experimental flow releases |
1995 | Performed kokanee spawning surveys |
1996 | Monitored wild sturgeon reproduction during experimental flow releases |
1996 | Spawned wild adult white sturgeon |
1996 | Performed kokanee spawning surveys |
1997 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1997 | Monitored wild sturgeon reproduction during experimental flow releases |
1997 | Developed and implemented disease testing protocol for juvenile releases |
1997 | Developed and tested non-lethal sampling method for detection of white sturgeon iridovirus (WSIV) |
1997 | Released offspring from 1995 year class into the Kootenai River |
1997 | Developed methodology for field collection of sperm to reduce number of wild sturgeon transported to hatchery |
1997 | Monitored juvenile releases |
1997 | Performed kokanee spawning surveys |
1997 | Reintroduced kokanee eggs into two tributaries using instream incubation |
1998 | Began facility and water supply upgrades |
1998 | Produced white sturgeon offspring from wild adults |
1998 | Monitored juvenile releases |
1998 | Monitored wild sturgeon reproduction during experimental flow releases |
1998 | Reintroduced kokanee eggs into three tributaries using instream incubation |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
9404900 | Kootenai River Ecosystems Improvements Study | Co-investigator |
8806500 | Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations | Co-investigator |
9084 | Assessing Genetic Variation Among Columbia Basin White Sturgeon | Genetics testing for Kootenai River white sturgeon |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | Biologist/Admistrator; Hatchery Manager; 4 Fish Culturists; M&E; Hatchery Maintenance | $240,000 |
Fringe | 33% of Personnel Costs | $79,200 |
Supplies | $30,000 | |
Operating | $60,000 | |
Capital | Building and major equipment | $1,400,000 |
NEPA | FY99 | $0 |
Construction | Design, construction management, construction contingencies | $608,000 |
PIT tags | 6,000 | $17,400 |
Travel | includes training | $10,000 |
Indirect | 54.7% of PERSONNEL COSTS | $174,602 |
Other | Professional Services (IDFG database; disease and genetic testing) | $13,000 |
Subcontractor | University of Idaho- Biology Department | $25,000 |
Subcontractor | B.C. Ministry of Fisheries - Research | $28,000 |
Subcontractor | B.C. Ministry of Fisheries-Aquaculture | $65,000 |
$2,750,202 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $2,750,202 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $2,750,202 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Upper Columbia United Tribes | Fish and Wildlife Support | $74,500 | unknown |
US Fish and Wildlife Service | Disease testing - no cost contribution for some analysis | $0 | unknown |
British Columbia Ministry of Fisheries | Fail-safe facility - contributions listed in Section 8d. | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The conservation aquaculture program should continue until evidence is available to show that natural reproduction is yielding adequate recruits to sustain the genetic variability of the population, as defined in the recovery plan (USFWS 1998).
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part. Fund the research component. Do not fund capital expenditures until a comprehensive review of regionwide white sturgeon recovery efforts is complete. Do not fund kokanee portion of the proposal, objective 4, because the scientific basis for linking kokanee to white sturgeon is not justified.Comments: This project addresses Kootenai white sturgeon, which is federally listed as endangered. White sturgeon have not recruited into the spawning population since 1974. The primary purpose of the project is to preserve the existing gene pool and to restore the natural age-class distribution through construction and operation of a hatchery.
This is a fairly well written proposal, of a quality in the midrange of those reviewed, that warrants funding for the sturgeon research but not the kokanee work (which is an aberration here). A second major problem is the lack of evidence of integration/coordination with other white sturgeon work in the Columbia River basin. The proposal cites the FWP and white sturgeon BiOp, as well as two related projects and one proposal (funded?) from last year. There are good accomplishments, but the kokanee results seem out of place. Objectives and tasks are good, but the kokanee work does not seem appropriate for this study. Perhaps it is needed, but just not justified in terms of white sturgeon. A key element of the proposal is an expensive hatchery, which assumes that spawning and early survival are the keys to success (questionable). There is a small amount of cost sharing (3%). Technical background is good for sturgeon but poor for kokanee and burbot (both of which seem peripheral or even irrelevant to the main objectives). The rationale/significance for sturgeon work is good and the relationships to other projects are excellent. Project history is good for sturgeon, but nothing is given for kokanee. However, if arrangements have been made for hatchery space with the Canadians, why is the expense of the KTH justified? Objectives are really mostly methods. In summary, the sturgeon work is good (although it needs evidence of coordination with similar work in the Columbia basin) but kokanee work should be separated out. The sturgeon work might be a good candidate for multi-year funding.
Several specific comments from reviewers were:
- Vital information is left out of the background/justification section of this proposal. Numbers are given concerning targets for sustaining and rehabilitating the population. How were these numbers derived? Was some population viability analysis done?
- What life history structure will demonstrate that the conserved population is made healthy? How does the present structure compare with other populations that are intact (e.g., below Bonneville Dam)?
- Page 18 states, "Number of fish released per family will be adjusted in future years when actual survival rate is known". This presumes that the environment and therefore the risks are constant. Is this true? The hydrograph has been very unstable since the installation of the dam.
- The statement concerning losing an entire generation of spawners may be in error given the life span of white sturgeons, alarming though the missing age classes may be. Was the mean generation time for Kootenai white sturgeon formally calculated?
- The description of how genetic structure of the population is to be monitored is inadequate. What is going to be indexed? heterozygosity? presence of rare allelles? What genetic analyses will be performed? protein electrophoresis? mtDNA? nuclear DNA? Who is the geneticist? Will this be subcontracted to a genetics group?
- Will pedigree analyses be performed to examine success of different mating combinations?
- Will samples of wild fish be taken to monitor possible differences between hatchery and wild brood stocks?
- Given the several problems that have occurred in the past with holding fish, have risks of aquacultural failure been assessed, specifically of a Canadian "failsafe" facility?
- Note that increasing interspecific competition of hatchery fish with wild fish was not mentioned as a potential unwanted side-effect, although it is raised as an issue in proposal 8806500. Adding hatchery fish to a system that is nutrient limited increases pressure on wild fish. Food limitation seems important to define. Is this the reason for the kokanee work? If so, it is poorly justified as such. The kokanee work nonetheless should be separated from the sturgeon work. However, it does make sense to supplement the wild stocks if there is another life history bottleneck, such as recruitment, and food is in surplus. There may be other compelling hypotheses, but these look like two hypotheses that should be tested.
- Demonstrated coordination among Columbia River basin white sturgeon researchers is essential, considering the common problems. Genetics of stocks basin-wide needs attention. A more formal statement of competing hypotheses throughout the basin could be helpful in guiding research.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: yes
Programmatic Criteria: yes
Milestone Criteria: no-There is no recovery plan as of yet.
General Comments: The price is awfully high for the project compared to where we were three years ago. We need to investigate the possibility of BPA ESA, and Capital dollars for funding. A new hatchery should be as cost effective as possible.
Comment:
Fund in part. Fund the research component. Do not fund capital expenditures until a comprehensive review of regionwide white sturgeon recovery efforts is complete. Do not fund kokanee portion of the proposal, objective 4, because the scientific basis for linking kokanee to white sturgeon is not justified.The ISRP stands by its original recommendation. The answers to the specific ISRP concerns do not justify capital expenditure. This project was recommended for partial funding, pending a review of regionwide sturgeon recovery efforts. The PIs agree, and provide specific responses to a number of issues raised in the ISRP review. Although the responses are, for the most part, adequate, they do not provide a compelling argument that the original ISRP recommendation was not a wise one.
Comment:
Comment:
(4). Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture; KTOI; Project ID #8806400; FY 00 CBFWA Rec. $1,150,202Description/Background: Prevent extinction, preserve existing gene pool, and begin rebuilding healthy age classes of the endangered white sturgeon in the Kootenai River using conservation aquaculture techniques with wild broodstock.
Final ISRP Evaluation: Fund in part. Fund the research component. Do not fund capital expenditures until a comprehensive review of region-wide white sturgeon recovery efforts is complete. Do not fund kokanee portion of the proposal, Objective 4, because the scientific basis for linking kokanee to white sturgeon is not justified.
Project Sponsor's Policy Response: Concurred with CBFWA and ISRP funding recommendations on delaying hatchery construction. The original $2,750,202 funding request was reduced to $1,150,202 by eliminating the capital construction portion of the budget.
Council Recommendation: Fund in part. Do not fund hatchery construction and kokanee study. Approve a project funding level of $1,095,202. The sponsors concurred with CBFWA and the ISRP on delaying hatchery construction, and agree with the attendant budget reduction recommendations. The sponsor did not address the ISRP criticism of the proposed kokanee study portion of the project. The funding recommended above reflects the Council's acceptance of the ISRP recommendation to delete the kokanee study. (the figure includes a reduction of $55,000).
Comment:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund in part per ISRP Rec.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$1,604,000 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website