FY 2000 proposal 198806500

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

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.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website