Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198806500

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations
BPA Project Proposal Number 198806500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Business acronym (if appropriate) IDFG
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Vaughn L. Paragamian
Mailing Address 2750 Kathleen Ave.
City, State, Zip Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
Phone 2087691414
Fax 2087691418
E-mail vparagam@idfg.state.id.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Columbia
Subbasin Kootenai
 
Short Description Determine status of Kootenai River white sturgeon (ESA), burbot (a genetically distinct stock), whitefish, and bull and rainbow trout stocks in the Kootenai River and effects of water fluctuations and ecosystem changes on these stocks.
Target Species Kootenai River white sturgeon, burbot, redband rainbow and bull trout, and mountain whitefish


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 10.4B;.1;.2;.3;.4;.5; and 10.6C.1
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: ND-USFWS BO Incidental take
Other Planning Document References Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Plan, State of Idaho Bull Trout Recovery Plan


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): resident


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1995 Hypothesis developed infering river flow impair burbot spawning migrations and fitness.
1997 Burbot in Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake genetically distinct from burbot above Kootenai Falls in Montana.
1997 Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning migration behavior and environmental variables modeled.
1998 Rainbow trout spawners in Deep Creek (major tributary to Kootenai River in Idaho) are adfluvial stock and juveniles seed lower river in Idaho and Kootenay Lake, B.C.
1998 Seismic studies of the Kootenai River subbottom indicates 5 m of coarse sand, no evidence of gravels or cobbles.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8346700 Libby Reservoir levels/Kootenai River IFIM. Recovery of Kootenai River white sturgeon is dependent on augmented spring flows for sturgeon spawning and rearing. Winter low flows to test limitations to burbot migrations are dependent on water management from Libby. No
8806400 Kootenai River white sturgeon study and experimental culture. IDFG is a cooperator with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI). IDFG assists the tribe in the capture of brood fish for their hatchery and evaluates the hatchery contribution to the population, interaction between juvenile wild/hatchery sturgeon. No
9404900 Kootenai River ecosystem improvement study. IDFG is a partner in the Adaptive Ecosystem Assessment method (AEA) with the Kootenai Tribe. IDFG has been a participant in the AEA process and has helped fund the associated workshops and a user guide to the computer program. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Determine if growth, condition, and Wr of adult white sturgeon in the Kootenai River are effected by operational changes in Libby Dam a. Collect a sample of 50 adult sturgeon, measure, weigh, sex, determine maturity, collect fin ray, tag, and release.
1. b. Calculate growth, condition, and Wr each year and evaluate with hydrologic and temperature data.
2. Determine the minimum flow that will provide spawning and rearing habitat for Kootenai River white sturgeon and bring off a successful year class. a. Tag 12 mature white sturgeon with sonic and radio transmitters.
2. b. Determine response of adult sturgeon to flows in river provided from Libby Dam by radio and sonic telemetry.
2. c. Measure physical parameters of habitats utilized by adults: temp., flow, depth, substrate etc.
2. d. Measure egg deposition with egg sampling mats, numbers, date, location, egg stage, substrate, velocity, depth, and temperature. Stage each egg to determine spawn date and record number of spawning events.
2. e. Measure larval relative abundance with D-rings, half meter nets, benthic trawls, and meter nets.
2. f. Measure fingerling and juvenile abundance with gill nets, collect lengths, weights, and fin rays. Age finrays and compare year class strength to hydrologic conditions.
2. g. Quantify early life history white sturgeon habitat and prepare habitat suitability index (HIS) curves and compare to hydrologic conditions and HIS curves for Columbia River white sturgeon.
3. Determine if food abundance is a factor limiting juvenile white sturgeon growth and condition. a. Collect 25 juvenile hatchery white sturgeon, measure, weigh, and collect stomachs. Examine stomach contents, number and weight of items.
3. b. Calculate condition, growth rates, and Wr of juvenile wild and hatchery sturgeon and compare changes in these factors and stocking numbers and densities of hatchery fish.
3. c. Calculate electivity index and determine food preferences to what is available (benthic data collected by KITI) and if limiting.
4. Determine if growth and survival of juvenile white sturgeon has been limited by varying flows post dam. a. Capture hatchery and wild juvenile white sturgeon; measure, weigh, collect fin ray sections, and calculate Wr and condition.
4. b. Compare annual growth rates to hydrologic conditions including power peaking, temperature, food abundance (data collected by KTOI), and operations of Libby Dam.
5. Determine if high flows during winter block or delay the migration of spawning burbot. a. Capture adult burbot with hoopnets and implant a minimum of eight sonic and four radio transmitters.
5. b. Conduct routine sonic and radio telemetry on burbot during various discharge regimes.
5. c. One five week block of low flow (6,000 cfs) may be provided by the USACE to test movements of burbot. Use Fishery Exact test and Chi-square to determine statistical relation of movement and discharge.
5. d. Evaluate spawning success with half meter nets and D-rings.
5. e. Deploy continuous recording thermographs in major spawning tributaries and compare temperature to timing of spawning.
5. f. Monitor burbot migration into Idaho from lower river with hoopnets. Examine females for unspent eggs.
6. Identify a means of effectively sampling larval burbot and sturgeon. a. Deploy drift nets (objective 5d)
6. b. Experiment with mid-water trawl, bottom trawl, half-meter nets, meter nets, and other active and passive gears at prospective habitat locations in the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake.
7. Determine the genetic level of similarity between burbot stocks in the Kootenai River and Duncan Lake (an impounded portion of a tributary to Kootenay Lake). a. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms will be used to determine the genetic similarity between the two stocks. Evaluate the feasibility of the Duncan stocks potential use for recovery of Kootenai River fish as a captive breeding wild population.
8. Determine source of rainbow and bull trout recruitment in Idaho portion of Kootenai River. a. Trap outmigrating juvenile rainbow and bull trout in Boulder Creek with a screw trap.
8. b. Locate marked juvenile outmigrant rainbow and bull trout in the Kootenai River with seine and electrofishing gear.
8. c. Capture adult rainbow trout and mark with Floy reward tags. Implant 20 rainbow trout and four bull trout with radio transmitters and monitor movement .
8. d. Conduct mark and recapture population estimates in selected reaches of the upper Kootenai River in Idaho.
8. e. Determine movement, habitat use, and spawning locations of adult rainbow and bull trout through radio tracking.
8. f. Calculate minimum exploitation of rainbow trout from return of reward tags. Return of tags will also provide information on repeat spawners and post spawn distribution of trout.
9. Determine if contaminants in the Kootenai River water and/or sediments are limiting survival of sturgeon eggs and larvae. a. Determine contaminants to be tested.
9. b. Remove 5 g sample of gonads from adult sturgeon and determine select contaminant levels.
9. c. Determine primary mode of contaminant uptake in spawned white sturgeon eggs.
10. Determine if burbot will spawn under captive conditions in historic tributaries. a. Obtain genetically and behaviorally similar donor stock of adult burbot (20 – 30 adults).
10. b. Construct enclosure in Myrtle Creek and maintain captive brood stock under semi natural conditions.
10. c. Examine brood fish post spawn to determine if they spawned under captive conditions.
11. Determine if and at what velocity spawning fitness or vitellogenesis of burbot is impaired. a. Design a statistically valid study (with a Fish Physiologist) to determine stress levels in burbot.
11. b. Under test and control laboratory conditions expose adult burbot to stress testing with various flow velocities.
11. c. Measure blood cortisol levels and effects on vitellogenin synthesis to eggs.
11. d. Identify whether or not and at what level velocities impose a stress factor to burbot spawning fitness.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/98 12/01/18 Recruitment of wild year classes restore population and the Kootenai River white sturgeon is delisted x 10.0%
2 01/01/95 12/01/18 Recruitment of wild year classes restore sturgeon population x 40.0%
3 01/01/97 12/01/99 Determine if food availability is a limiting factor x 5.0%
4 01/01/95 12/01/18 Relation of Libby operations to white sturgeon condition and growth determined x 5.0%
5 01/01/96 12/01/00 Hypothesis testing completed flow /burbot migration and stress factor relation identified. x 8.0%
6 01/01/98 12/01/05 Systematic sampling design developed to measure year class success of burbot and sturgeon at age –0. x 2.0%
7 01/01/98 12/01/00 Genetic analysis of Duncan and Kootenai stocks completed and comparisons made to determine suitability of Duncan stock as donor. x 1.0%
8 01/01/97 12/01/04 Population statistics, movement, exploitation, and recruitment source of rainbow and bull trout determined and management recommendations provided. x 20.0%
9 01/01/97 12/01/00 Contaminant levels in sturgeon eggs determined and possible sublethal levels verified. x 1.0%
10 01/01/00 12/01/03 Critical stress velocity for burbot and effects on vitellogenesis determined. x 4.0%
11 01/01/00 12/01/06 Burbot donor stock spawn and progeny return to spawning tributary. x 4.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 4 permanent, 8-10 temporary part time $202,198
Fringe Normal state benefits $ 69,695
Supplies Office and field supplies, electrofishing and lab gear $ 34,519
Operating Boats, motors, trailers and trucks $ 46,424
Capital Replacement boats, motors and electronic gear $ 33,075
Travel AFS meetings, special symposia, workshops $ 23,732
Indirect $101,003
Subcontractor $105,950
Total Itemized Budget $616,596


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $616,596
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $616,596
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $647,425 $679,800 $713,785 $749,480
Total Outyear Budgets $647,425 $679,800 $713,785 $749,480
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Endangered Secies Act is abandoned by Congress and support for sturgeon and bull trout recovery is impeded. USACE does not cooperate to fullest extent with winter test flows for burbot leading to inconclusive data and need to repeat testing next year.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Alekperov, A.P. 1996. An analysis of the population of the Kua sturgeon [Acipenser guldenstadti persicus Borodin] in relation to the disruption of migratory and spawning conditions. Journal of Ichthyology 9 (2): 297-300. No
Apperson, K. and P.J. Anders. 1991. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Portland, Oregon No
Auer, N.A. 1996. Response of spawning lake sturgeon to changes in hydroelectric facility operation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:66-77 No
Becker, G. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin No
Bonde, T.H. and R.M. Bush. 1975. Kootenai River water quality investigations, Libby Dam preimpoundment study 1967-1972. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No
Beer, K.E. 1981. Embryonic and larval development of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). Master’s Thesis, University of California, Davis, California. 93 pp. No
Dowling, T.E., C. Moritz and J.D. Palmer. 1990. Nucleic acids II: restriction site analysis. In D.M. Hillis and C. Moritz (ed.) Molecular Systematics, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland. No
Jones, D.R., J.W. Kiceniuk, and O.S. Bamford. 1974. Evaluation of the swimming performance of several species of fish from the Mackenzie River. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31:1641-1647. No
Khoroshko, P.N. 1972. The amount of water in the Volga basin and its effect on the reproduction of sturgeon (Acipenseridae) under conditions of normal and regulated discharge. Journal of Ichthyology 12:608-616. No
McCabe, G.T. and L.G. Beckman. 1990. Use of an artificial substrate to collect white sturgeon eggs. California Fish and Game 76(4):248-250. No
McPhail, J.D. 1997. A review of burbot (Lota lota) life history and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2397. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada. No
Nilo, P., Dumont, P., and Furtin, R. 1997. Climatic and hydrological determinants of year-class strength of St. Lawrence River lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science 54:774-780. No
Northcote, T.C. 1973. Some impacts of man on Kootenay Lake and its salmonids. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Technical Report Number 2, Ann Arbor, Michigan. No
Paragamian, V.L. 1993. Kootenai River fisheries inventory: stock status and rainbow trout and fisheries inventory. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Bonneville Power Administration, Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Boise. No
Paragamian, V.L. 1994. Kootenai River fisheries inventory: stock status and rainbow trout and fisheries inventory. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65. Boise. No
Paragamian, V.L. 1995. Kootenai River fisheries inventory: stock status and rainbow trout and fisheries inventory. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65. Boise. No
Paragamian V., G. Kruse and V.D. Wakkinen. 1995. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Portland, Oregon. No
Paragamian, V., G. Kruse, and V.D. Wakkinen. 1996. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Portland, Oregon No
Paragamian, V., G. Kruse, and V.D. Wakkinen. 1997. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Portland, Oregon. No
Paragamian, V., G. Kruse, and V.D. Wakkinen. 1998. Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Annual Progress Report, Project 88-65, Portland, Oregon. No
Paragamian, V., M. Powell, and J. Faler. In press. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of burbot Lota lota stocks in the Kootenai Basin of, British Columbia, Montana, and Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. No
Parsley, M. 1991. How water velocities may limit white sturgeon spawning. Research Information Bulletin, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 91-86. No
Parsley, M.J. and L.G. Beckman. 1994. White sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in the lower Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:812-827. No
Partridge, F. 1983. Kootenai River fisheries investigations. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Job Completion Report, Project F-73-R-5, Boise. No
Sambrook, J.E, E.F. Fitch, and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular Cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor. No
Snyder, E.B. and G.W. Minshall. 1996. Ecosystem metabolism and nutrient dynamics in the Kootenai River in relation to impoundment and flow enhancement for fisheries management. Stream Ecology Center, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho. No
Votinov, N.P. and V.P. Kas’yanov. 1978. The ecology and reproductive efficiency of the Siberian sturgeon, Acipenser baeri, in the Ob as affected by hydraulic engineering works. Journal of Ichthyology 18:20-28. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part at reduced level (FY99 level?). Do not fund hypotheses 2,3,4 and 11; they are not well thought out, and 3 and 11 are not theoretically justified. Any subsequent funding must be subject to completion of a specific independent scientific review, via a visiting committee, and a comprehensive review of regionwide white sturgeon recovery efforts.

Comments: This is Idaho's project related to mitigation for Libby Dam on the Kootenai River. The main goal is restoration of the Kootenai River ecosystem and the fisheries that had been supported prior to Libby Dam. The strength of this project proposal lies in its addressing a broad variety of native species as well as the comprehensive approach outlined in the section on Rationale and Significance to Regional Programs. Particularly appealing is coordination with IDFG and with British Columbia. The Proposal objectives section is very comprehensive. The Hypothesis-Product format is unique and informative. One weakness is the absence of a "cross-walk" between objectives, methods and budget.

The proposal, however, does not adequately relate its efforts to similar BPA-funded efforts in Montana. It is not part of the Libby Dam mitigation umbrella. The proposal does cite the FWP and the Kootenai River white sturgeon recovery plan and three other Kootenai R. studies. The proposal gives a thorough listing of objectives and tasks up front covering several years of work, but the narrative later on is mostly a re-listing (different). The hypothesis structure is good. The project is fairly costly, with no cost sharing indicated. The budget does not seem to correspond to the work they are doing and does not seem to be comparable to other work in the region. There is a concise, good background on each target species. The rationale and significance are poor—mostly a restatement of goals. The narrative on relationships to other projects is poor, considering the number of other projects funded by BPA for Libby Dam mitigation. The project history is not well related to the project, just to the problem. Methods are terse, poorly written, and difficult to understand. On the other hand, facilities and equipment are listed in more detail than is needed. No resumes were provided as per instructions, so we cannot gauge the competence of staff to do the proposed work. The PI appears to be an energetic scientist, but until greater details are specified, it is difficult to assess the probable success of the proposed work. Despite the marginal proposal, the monitoring work seems to be providing good information and it should be continued. Had the proposal been better, the study might have been a candidate for multi-year funding.

The reviewers had several specific observations and questions:

  • Paragamian seems to have been in the thick of the field research, as many of the other proposals on the Kootenai subbasin cite his work. He is one of the few to present his ideas as testable hypotheses and to have published his work in a refereed journal (Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.).
  • Overall this is a peculiar proposal. Almost four times the space is allocated to facilities rather than methodology, which is sketchy and lacks needed detail. Much of the work will be based on back-calculated growth rates of 50 sturgeon correlated with various records. Will the numbers be sufficient for statistical power?
  • How is Hypothesis 1 concerning the change in demographic statistics to be tested? Are you intending to develop vertical life table as well as back-calculate growth? Should you not collect a variety of sizes of subadults and adults in order to reduce biases in back-calculation? What are the drawbacks of a vertical lifetable in a variable environment?
  • It appears that the work to test Hypothesis 2, minimum spawning and rearing flows, has been largely accomplished in two publications in preparation. How does the proposed work differ from that accomplished? Is this a test of your model?
  • Given the sketchy details, how is Hypothesis 3, concerning food limitations, to be tested? Food electivity studies alone will not provide the information. Is your intention to compare growth of sturgeon raised in a hatchery with those growing in the wild? As the rations should differ substantially between populations, hatchery fish receiving optimal rations, presumably, how will you demonstrate that limited food is having an affect on survival of juvenile sturgeon? How will you be able to prove that intraspecific competition, which appears a reasonable hypothesis, is reducing white sturgeon growth? All you may prove is that hatchery fish differ in growth from juvenile sturgeon, which is also a reasonable hypothesis. (Note that the question of intraspecific competition from hatchery fish was not mentioned as an unwanted side-effect in proposal 880640).
  • Hypothesis 4. It is not clear how you can test for varying flows and/or nutrient losses affecting survival and growth in this study.
  • Hypothesis 5 (impeding burbot migration due to high discharge from dams) is a good testable hypothesis. Will natural hydrographs be used for baseline calculations of pre-dam migration times?
  • Objectives 6-8 concern building baseline data and seem reasonable.
  • Hypothesis 9 (toxicants affecting egg and larval development). It seems that if hatching and larval survival of hatchery sturgeon are comparable to Columbia River and California sturgeon hatcheries, that this may be of concern, but of lower priority.
  • Hypothesis 10 comes out of objective 7. The working hypothesis for objective 7 is that there are no differences between Duncan and Kootenai stocks of burbot. Therefore Duncan stocks may be used to supplement depleted wild stocks (presuming that it is spawning limitations and not food or habitat which is limiting).
  • Hypothesis 11 concerns stress and cortisol levels in burbot. Who among the staff are qualified to conduct these tests? The assays and interpretation of the results takes experienced personnel familiar with the clinical procedures. Stress can be induced so quickly, that capturing specimens to sample for blood cortisol can in seconds, artifactually raise levels high enough to obscure experimental treatment.

The project needs to be included in overall external reviews of (1) the Libby Dam mitigation work, and (2) basin-wide white sturgeon recovery work.


CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no clear milestones listed beyond 2000.

General comments: It seems pricey for the product.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$617,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund in part. Do not fund hypotheses/objectives 3, 4, and 11; 3 and 11 are not theoretically justified. The ISRP's original recommendation to not fund hypothesis 2 is now changed to a fund because the response adequately addressed the ISRP concerns, although the response does not provide clarification of all the logic underlying the hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 is for monitoring and evaluation of white sturgeon as related to environmental conditions. This monitoring is needed to implement the Recovery Plan and for adequate management by the Technical Management Team. It will also contribute to long-term records for scientific studies. The responses justify this work, especially at an exploratory level. Further coordination of all parties in the Kootenai system still seems desirable to the reviewers.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
(5). Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations; IDFG; Project ID #8806500l; CBFWA 00 Rec. $616,596

Description/Background: Determine status of Kootenai River white sturgeon (ESA), burbot (a genetically distinct stock), whitefish, and bull and rainbow trout stocks in the Kootenai River and effects of water fluctuations and ecosystem changes on these stocks. ISRP Review: Fund in part. Do not fund hypotheses/objectives 3,4, and 11; 3 and 11 are not theoretically justified. The ISRP's original recommendation to not fund hypothesis 2 is now changed to a fund because the response adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. Hypothesis 2 is for monitoring and evaluation of white sturgeon as related to environmental conditions. This monitoring is needed to implement the Recovery Plan and for adequate management by the Technical Management Team. It will also contribute to long-term records for scientific studies.

The responses justify this work, especially at an exploratory level. Further coordination of all parties in the Kootenai system still seems desirable to the reviewers.

Council Recommendation: The Council concurs with the partial funding recommendation made in the ISRP's October 28, 1999 report. Only the objectives endorsed by the ISRP are recommended for funding.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$561,103
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 Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$951,697
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$951,697
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$951,697
Sponsor (IDFG) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page