FY07-09 proposal 200000400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitor, Protect, and Rehabilitation of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat in the Upper Kootenay River Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 200000400 |
| Organization | Ministry of Environment |
| Short description | Protect Upper Kootenay River bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout from inappropriate reservoir operating regimes and other resource practises by monitoring bull trout spawner returns, their habitat and then rehabilitating their habitat where required. |
| Information transfer | The monitoring data collected by this project will be used to protect bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and their habitat, through the use of regulation changes where required. All information/data/reports generated from this project will be uploaded on the BPA and MOE web sites so that they can be accessed by the public. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Herb Tepper | Ministry of Environment | Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Herb Tepper | Ministry of Environment | Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca |
| Herb Tepper | Ministry of Environment | Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca |
| Herb Tepper | Ministry of Environment | Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Kootenai
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wigwam River | Upper Kootenay Watershed (Canada), focusing on the Wigwam, St Mary, Sookumchuck, and White Rivers |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Westslope Cutthroatprimary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White River. |
| 2004 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White & Skookumchuck Rivers. |
| 2003 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White & Skookumchuck Rivers. |
| 2002 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the Wigwam & Skookumchuck Rivers. |
| 2001 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the Wigwam River. |
| 2000 | Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Established permanent monitoring stations in the Wigwam River to monitor BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199500400 | Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam | Also assessed the metapopulation strength of bull trout in the Kootenay River (in the USA) above Libby Dam. Also established permanent stream-form and bull trout sediment monitoring stations in Grave Creek. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improve Channel Stability | Improve channel stability to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated channel stability scores of reference and Class 1 streams. | Kootenai | Increase or improve instream habitat by restoring recruitment of large woody debris, pool development, or other appropriate components in streams where investigation indicates such actions are likely to benefit native fish. |
| Improve Habitat Diversity | Improve habitat diversity to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated habitat diversity scores of reference streams. | Kootenai | Increase or improve instream habitat by restoring recruitment of large woody debris, pool development, or other appropriate components in streams where investigation indicates such actions are likely to benefit native fish. |
| Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability | Achieve an overall bull trout population trend in the Kootenai River Recovery Unit that is accepted, under contemporary standards of the time, to be stable or increasing, based on at least 10 years of monitoring data. | Kootenai | Emphasis should be placed on continuing to track bull trout population trends through surveys of catch and harvest in Kootenay Lake as well as other monitoring indices (e.g., redd counts) of migratory fish in the upstream waters. |
| Restore Riparian Habitat | Restore riparian habitats to levels equivalent to the QHA-generated riparian condition habitat restoration scores of reference streams. | Kootenai | Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas and implement tasks to restore their appropriate functions. Reconstruct stream banks in degraded riparian areas where needed to allow appropriate physical conditions for successful revegetation. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Floodplain | Rehabilitation of Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek | Instream and floodplain rehabilitation Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek. This includes planting of vegetation. | 7/1/2009 | 6/30/2010 | $120,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve Channel Stability Improve Habitat Diversity Restore Riparian Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 25 |
||||
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Rehabilitation of Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek | Instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek. Also includes "As-Built" report, effectiveness monitoring and potential maintenance of structures. | 7/1/2008 | 6/30/2010 | $150,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve Channel Stability Improve Habitat Diversity Restore Riparian Habitat |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: 2 |
||||
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Rehabilitation of Reach 4 of Bighorn Creek | Construction/installation of reach 4 habitat and channel morphology features. | 7/1/2009 | 6/30/2010 | $120,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve Channel Stability Improve Habitat Diversity Restore Riparian Habitat |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: 4 |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | FY07, FY08 & FY09 SOW, Accrual Estimates and Sub-Contract Administration | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Design/Specifications for Rehabilitation of Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek | Data collection (Level 2 Rosgen Survey and Level 2 FHAP) to produce the designs/specifications for instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek. | 7/1/2007 | 3/31/2008 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve Channel Stability Improve Habitat Diversity Restore Riparian Habitat |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Design/Specifications for Rehabilitation of Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek | Data collection (Level 2 Rosgen Survey and Level 2 FHAP) to produce the designs/specifications for instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 4 of Bighorn Creek. | 7/1/2008 | 3/31/2009 | $45,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve Channel Stability Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability Restore Riparian Habitat |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Status Reports in Pisces | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Annual Analysis of McNeil Core Samples | Annual analysis of McNeil core substrate samples (84) from the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River watersheds to monitor bull trout spawning substrate quality. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Aerial Bull Trout Redd Survey | Conduct an aerial (helicopter) redd survey of the St. Mary and North Fork White Rivers (anecdotal evidence supports spawning by adfluvial Lake Koocanusa bull trout). | 10/1/2007 | 10/31/2007 | $11,000 |
|
Biological objectives Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Annual Bull Trout Redd Counts | Annual bull trout redd counts in the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River Watersheds | 10/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Annual McNeil Core Sampling | Annual collection of McNeil core substrate samples (84) from the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River watersheds to monitor bull trout spawning substrate quality. The number of samples may increase if additional spawning locations are found in the St Mary and N. White drainages. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2010 | $14,000 |
|
Biological objectives Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Mainly Sub-Contractor Fees (Biologists, Hydrologist & Technicians) | $40,000 | $70,000 | $85,000 |
| Supplies | Mainly Materials (i.e. Rock, Trees, etc.), but it also includes heavy machine rates (i.e. excavator, rock and transport trucks) | $5,000 | $90,000 | $180,000 |
| Travel | Accommodation, Meal per diem and Vehicle costs | $5,000 | $10,000 | $15,000 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $3,000 | $10,000 | $17,000 |
| Other | Helicopter costs | $10,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Totals | $63,000 | $180,000 | $297,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $540,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $540,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ministry of Environment | Staff Time, Office Space & Equipment | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $200,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $200,000 |
Comments: Proposed instream habitat complexity in Reach 5, 6 and 7 of Bighorn Creek in 2010 and onward |
Future O&M costs: Potential maintenance of in-stream structures (Reach 1 to 4) may be required after a few bankfull (or greater) events occur in the Bighorn Creek watershed.
Termination date: 2012?
Comments: The above termination date is an estimate of when the restoration work may be completed in Bighorn Creek. However, we plan to do additional restoration work in other high priority watersheds identified in the Kootenai Subbasin Plan and we would like to continue with this proposals Biological Objective 1 (Tributary Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring) in the future.
Final deliverables: All reports and other deliverables outlined in Section 10 (subsection F) of this proposal.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| Response to ISRP Questions | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $63,000 | $63,000 | $63,000 | $189,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $63,000 | $63,000 | $63,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The project is intended to mitigate for fish and fish habitat losses attributed to the construction and operation of Libby Dam. It proposes to continue baseline population monitoring of bull trout spawning in the upper Kootenai River and tributaries of Lake Koocanusa to assess the impact of reservoir operations and fishing/harvest opportunities. The new components for physical rehabilitation need to be more clearly justified. Is the proposed strategy consistent with emerging ideas regarding requirements for a successful restoration project (see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208–217, and references cited)? The narrative includes a significant amount of data produced by the project so far. It includes a good synthesis of monitoring results. The sponsors should include a description of what they think these results mean with respect to the project's goals and objectives. For example, an increasing trend in population size was described. Can it be shown that this trend is a result of the habitat work being conducted? Reasons offered for the recent drop in redds included a recent slide and/or increased fishing pressure. How are these factors separated in analysis? It is important for the sponsors to show that this project has potential for producing quantitative relations between habitat engineering and fish abundance that could have widespread application. Please respond to the questions and statements included in the previous paragraphs. The ISRP also seeks clarification on what types of actions are eligible for funding in Canada. What is BPA’s mitigation responsibility in Canada for such projects as Libby Dam? Is there any Council or BPA policy on this?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal includes all the important parts. It has redd/adult counts, and they are gathering offspring data. These should permit an assessment of whether the number of offspring at any given spawner level has increased through time. The sponsors seem very qualified and experienced, have a good protocol, and already have done some work similar to what is proposed on a lower stream section. It looks like the rehab would be done well and have a high probability of bolstering fish abundance. Hypotheses linking "habitat fixing recipes" and fishery benefits are driving a significant portion of fishery work in the Northwest. This project has potential to provide a test of that link. From the Council and BPA, the ISRP also seeks clarification on what types of actions are eligible for funding in Canada. What is BPA’s mitigation responsibility in Canada for such projects as Libby Dam? Is there any Council or BPA policy on this?