FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22038
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 |
|---|---|
| 22038 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Design and assessment of artificial spawning habitat for kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho |
| Proposal ID | 22038 |
| Organization | University of Idaho (UI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dr. David H. Bennett and Dr. Edwin R. Schmeckpeper |
| Mailing address | Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Univ. of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844-1136 |
| Phone / email | 2088856337 / dbennett@uidaho.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | David H. Bennett |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille |
| Short description | Design and assessment of artifical spawning habitat modules for kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille. |
| Target species | kokanee |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.1565 | -116.3342 | Lake Pend Oreille |
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: 2.5 graduate students, 1 Irreg. Help, 0.75 faculty | $95,532 |
| Fringe | 28.5% PIs, 1% Graduate Assistants, 25% Irreg. Help | $14,874 |
| Supplies | module materials, crane rental & other equip. rental | $104,200 |
| Travel | U of I to Lake Pend Oreille, per diem | $3,500 |
| Indirect | 31.5% | $68,703 |
| $286,809 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $286,809 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $286,809 |
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.
Comment:
This is an innovative proposal for enhancing kokanee spawning in some shore areas in Lake Pend Oreille, in the face of winter drawdowns. Although constructed spawning platforms have been used elsewhere, this proposal is innovative in that the platforms are cleanable to remove accumulated silt. However, the effectiveness of the artificial substrate for solving the overall problem of lack of target adult kokanee abundance is not fully persuasive, for other limiting factors besides spawning are likely limiting kokanee production in Lake Pend Oreille - e.g., hatchery fish are released with unsuccessful results. The portable characteristics are especially innovative. The technique, if proven successful, would be applicable to Lake Roosevelt, which has similar problems. All aspects appear technically sound and do-able. The cost is reasonable for the work to be accomplished. However, it would have been nice to have seen this approach already field-tested with a small prototype before plunging in at this scale. Despite some reservations, the Panel ranked this proposal at 20.Comment:
Initiate this project at a smaller scale.Comment:
Initiate this project at a smaller scale.