FY07-09 proposal 199404900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements Project |
| Proposal ID | 199404900 |
| Organization | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho |
| Short description | The Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements Project proposes to continue monitoring key ecological functions of the Kootenai River ecosystem and to mitigate for nutrients lost to hydro operations at Libby Dam. Habitat complexity evaluation is proposed. |
| Information transfer | Information generated by the Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements Project will be shared in a number of venues to include the Bonneville Power Administration and Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (www.bpa.gov and www.cbfwa.org). This project also maintains a database where monitoring and reporting information can be shared (www.ktoi.scsnetw.com). Additionally, when appropriate, project information will be published in peer reviewed journals. The Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements Project also serves as a important data collection and monitoring project for the sub-basin. Water quality and aquatic trophic-level information dervied from this project is used to supplement other fish and wildlife projects working on the Kootenai River. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Charlie Holderman | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho | Cholderman@kootenai.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Paul Anders | S.P. Cramer and Associates, UI | anders@spcramer.com |
| Kym Cooper | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho | kym@kootenai.org |
| Charlie Holderman | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho | Cholderman@kootenai.org |
| Charlie Holderman | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho | Cholderman@kootenai.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Kootenai
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 45' N | 116 15' W | Kootenai River | The Kootenai River sub-basin from Lake Koocanusa, B.C.through the Idaho panhandle to Kootenay Lake, B.C. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Kokaneeprimary: Interior Redband Trout
primary: Mountain Whitefish
secondary: Burbot
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Northern Pikeminnow
secondary: White Sturgeon Kootenai River DPS
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Added 920 tons nitrogen to Kootenay Lake. Added 5600 gallons phosphate to Kootenai River. Biological and water quality monitoring, 25 sites. Planning, Permitting for nutrient additions. Planted trees/shrubs, tributaries. Annual Progress Report. |
| 2004 | Added 450 tons nitrogen to Kootenai Lake. IKERT group decides to move forward with 5 yr experimental nutrient additions to Kootenai River. Performed biological, water quality monitoring. Planted trees/shrubs. Research Finding Report. |
| 2003 | Biological, water quality monitoring at 14 sites, Kootenai River. Mitigated costs associated with nutrient monitoring, productivity metrics; Kootenay L. Planted trees/shrubs, Kootenai tributaries. IKERT meeting. Biological monitoring, key Tribs |
| 2002 | Monitoring of Water Quality. Monitoring of primary and secondary productivity (Kootenai River). Monitoring of fish community (4 sites, Kootenai River). IKERT meeting. Performed controlled, replicated, in-river nutrient experiment. Eval tributaries. |
| 2001 | Performed controlled, replicated, in-river nutrient experiment. Evaluated physical, chemical, and biological condition of 2 tributaries.Monitoring of water quality, algae, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities (Kootenai River). IKERT meeting. |
| 2000 | Formation of the International Kootenai Ecosystem Restoration Team (IKERT) to develop and guide ecosystem restoration of the Kooteani River. IKERT develops Kootenai River Monitoring Plan covering multiple trophic levels and key water quality parameters. |
| 1999 | Completed findings report for I year macroinvertebrate study. Summary of Adaptive Management modeling exercise completed. Summary of Water quality for Kootenai River tributaries completed. Pilot study to evaluate white sturgeon embryo hatching success. |
| 1998 | Kootenai River Macroinvertebrate Investigation initiated. Stream biota and habitat survey of Long Canyon, Parker, and Trout Creeks.Kootenai River Model to evaluate sturgeon responses to various flow scenerios completed. Kootenai R. Water Quality Summary. |
| 1997 | Adaptive management conference held to discuss ideas and generate hypotheses concerning declining fish stocks in the Kootenia River, with an emphasis on white sturgeon recruitment failure. Publication: Kootenai R. Baseline Status Report completed. |
| 1996 | Publication: Implications of ecosystem collapse on white sturgeon in Kootenai River, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Completion report for trophic status and productivity study, in part, Kootenai River (Synder and Minshall). |
| 1995 | Participation and input to trophic status and productivity study meetings, in part, Kootenai River (Synder and Minshall). |
| 1994 | Project initiation. Emphasis changes form single species fisheries managment to Ecosystem Level Investigation to disclose underlying problems associated with fisheries collapse in the Kootenai River, Idaho. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198806400 | Kootenai R White Sturgeon | Kootenai River White Sturgeon conservation aquaculture project. Produces annual class of juvenile sturgeon to supplement recruitment in the Kootenai River. Cooperative sharing of personnel, data and equipment occur between the projects. |
| BPA | 198806500 | Kootenai R White Sturgeon Inve | Determines the status and limiting factors for the Kootenai River white sturgeon, burbot, whitefish, bull trout and redband rainbow trout stocks in the Kootenai River and effects of water fluctuations and ecosystem changes on these stocks. Cooperative database sharing and biomonitoring sampling occur between the projects. |
| BPA | 200201100 | L. Kootenai Floodplain Assess. | Assesses, investigates and monitors key parameters of the lower Kootenai River floodpain to determine the feasibility of reconnecting historical floodpalin habitat to the mainstem Kootenai River. Cooperative sharing of personnel and data occur between the projects. |
| BPA | 200200800 | Reconnect Floodplain Kootenair | Determines feasibility and designs of floodplain reconnections in the Kootenai Valley area to improve habitat and productivity. Cooperative database management, data and personnel sharing occur between the projects. |
| BPA | 200200200 | Enhance White Sturgeon Habitat | Assesses feasibility of and designs scenarios to enhance white sturgeon spawning substrate, studies the temporal/transient changes in sediment type, bed form, and erosion/deposition of spawning substrate to address spawning habitat limitations. |
| BPA | 199500400 | Libby Reservoir Mitigation Pla | Implements watershed based enhancement and fish recovery actions in the Montana portion of the Kootenai Subbasin to mitigate the losses caused by hydropower development. Shared electrofishing between this project and 199404900 to assess fish community in MT canyon reaches. |
| [Funding Source left blank] | [no entry] | [Relationship field left blank] |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) | SBP Objective M3: Assess key water quality, algae, macroinvertebrate, and fish community dynamics at index sites on the Kootenai River. | Kootenai | Monitor key water quality, algae, macroinvertebrate, and fish community dynamics at index sites on the Kootenai River. |
| Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Tributaries) | SBP Objective T3: Monitor key water quality, algal, and macroinvertebrate parameters, and fish community dynamics at index sites located on key tributaries of the lower Kootenai River. | Kootenai | Objective T3: Monitor key water quality, algal, and macroinvertebrate parameters, and fish community dynamics at index sites located on key tributaries of the lower Kootenai River. |
| Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange | SBP Objectives AP2, AP3, AP4, and AP5. Develop and maintain adequate regional and international coordination. Pursue and support independent peer review and scientific counsel. Support locally recognized stakeholder group to improve coordination and implementation. Provide for and support distribution of information. | Kootenai | Develop and maintain international, regional and local coordination to successfully implement project objectives. Support and enhance outreach and information exchange. Use SBP strategies as a guide. |
| Eval. and Restore Habitat Complexity (Tributaries) | SBP Objective T3, T4, T5, T6: Reduce the delivery of fine sediments to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated fine sediment scores of reference streams or reaches. Improve channel stability to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated channel stability scores of reference streams or reaches. Protect and revegetate riparian areas to maintain shading and cool water temperatures, and, improve the thermograph to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated thermograph scores of reference and Class 1 streams. Improve habitat diversity to a level tequivalen to the QHA-generated habitat diversity scores of reference streams. | Kootenai | Increase instream habitat by restoring recruiting of large woody debris, pool development, and other critical components of stream ecosytems that benefit native fish. Design and implement solutions to increase habitat diversity, eg. slough reconnection. |
| Evaluate Habitat Complexity (Mainstem) | SBP Objective M5. Improve habitat diversity to levels equivalent to the QHA-generated habitat diversity restoration scores, and habitat diversity conditions based on literature reviews and large-river reference conditions. | Kootenai | Design and implement creative solutions for increasing habitat diversity, creation and reconnection of side channel, slough, and backwater habitats. And in-river habitat modifications and creations to increase habitat complexity in critical reaches,areas. |
| Restore System Productivity (Kootenai River) | SBP Objective WST1, BUR1, KOK1, BT5: Restore primary, secondary, and tertiary productivity rates and nutrient values downstream of Libby Dam to pre-dam conitions (equal to those of inflow conditions at Koocanusa Reservoir, and, corrected for downstream lateral input). | Kootenai | Design, Implement, monitor, and evaluate annually replicated large-scale, controlled, nutrient addition experiment.Continue to support implementation of South Arm Kootenay Lake Fertilization.Investigate potential of floodplain/river nutrient exchange. |
| Restore System Productivity (Kootenay Lake) | SBP Objective WST1, BUR1, KOK1, BT5: Restore primary, secondary, and tertiary productivity and nutrient values in the south-arm of Kootenay Lake to pre-Libby Dam conditions (nutrient levels equal to those of inflow conditions at Koocanusa Reservoir, and, corrected for downstream lateral inputs). | Kootenai | Continue to support implementation of South Arm Kootenay Lake Fertilization. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Nutrients Instream | Kootenai River Nutrient Restoration Experiment--Nitrogen and Phosporus Additions | Addition of direct nutrient introduction via fertilizer to improve biological diversity in a stream or river. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $120,000 |
|
Biological objectives Restore System Productivity (Kootenai River) |
Metrics |
||||
| Enhance Nutrients Instream | Kootenay Lake Nutrient Restoration and Monitoring | Addition of fish carcasses, or direct nutrient introduction via fertilizer to improve biological diversity in a stream or river | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $2,454,266 |
|
Biological objectives Restore System Productivity (Kootenay Lake) |
Metrics |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Tributary Rehabilitation on Trout, Parker, and Long Canyon Creeks | Install plants for purposes such as erosion control, roughness recruitment, shading, restoring native habitat, forage enhancement, road removal. May be riparian or upland and includes seeding. If maintaining vegetation, use WE# 22: Maintain Vegetation. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $100,000 |
|
Biological objectives Eval. and Restore Habitat Complexity (Tributaries) |
Metrics * # of riparian miles treated: 3.00 |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Annual International Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration Team (IKERT) Conference | Covers work to educate or communicate with the public. Includes conducting classes, seminars, workshops, training, symposia, and conferences. Excludes work to coordinate landowners or other direct participants in on-the-ground conservation (see WE# 118: Coordination), or work to identify and select new projects (WE# 114: Identify and Select Projects). | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 2000 |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Develop SOW, Accruals, Line Item Budget, Metric Reporting, personnel, indirect, and fringe ben | Covers work by the contractor to manage on the ground efforts, or to manage subcontractors associated with the project e.g., construction management. Also covers administrative work in support of on the ground efforts and in support of BPA's programmatic requirements such as metric reporting, financial reporting (e.g., accruals), and development of an SOW package (includes draft SOW, budget, spending plan, and property inventory). | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $840,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report of Findings/Activities | For many contracts, this report is an essential product that - when published and posted on the BPA website - succinctly documents contract performance for the public record. The second type of report is technical and applies to projects that are gathering data, for example on a feasibility study. This report provides a summary and analysis of data gathered - such as smolt to adult return rates, etc. - typically in a technical report format. These reports usually include data summaries. Intensive research projects may only produce cursory technical reports in some years, if the COTR and contractor have negotiated for a full scientific findings report (see other work element) after a few (e.g. 2-4) years of data. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $150,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Produce Quartely Status Reports | This work element covers any report required or produced for a contract, except those specifically covered under other work elements (e.g., WE# 132: Produce Annual Report, or WE# 183: Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report, or WE# 185: Produce Pisces Status Report). If this work element is used for multiple reports in the same contract, then each report should be listed as a separate milestone. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Biomonitoring--Algae | Work to collect, create, generate, our capture source data. Includes initial entering of data into a computer spreadsheet/database, developing automated data capture programs/routines and related hardware/software (e.g., PDAs, data loggers, thermographs), preparing metadata, and quality assurance/quality control processes. Also includes taking samples for later analysis (e.g., fish tissues for DNA analysis, macroinvertebrate samples, etc.), and any preparations for collecting data if not covered by another work element. Also includes generating secondary/derived data when those data are stored in a database for access and use by other parties for analysis like primary data. Capturing data includes entering data into a computer from historical records, digitizing images, and other methods for converting information to digital format. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $96,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend monitoring Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Biomonitoring--Fish Community Dynamics | The annual biological monitoring and evaluation of fish community dymanics in the Kootenai River at 6 index sites. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $96,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Biomonitoring--Littorial Zone Productivity | Monitoring and evaluation of the littorial zone productivity during the experimental phase of nutrient restoration in the Kootenai River. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $75,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Biomonitoring--Macroinvertebrates | Monitoring the benthic invertebrate community abundance, biomass, and species composition at index sites on the Kootenai River. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $285,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Biomonitoring--Water Quality | This work element produces nutrient and metals data critical to successful ecosystem-level fisheries management through the nutrient restoration effort. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $150,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Contamination Study--Heavy Metals, Organochlorines, Pesticides & PCB compounds | Evaluate and Monitor heavy metals, organochlorine pesticide and PCB contaminants in sediments downstream of the nutrient dripstation, and, within key white sturgeon habitat in the Kootenai River. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $27,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action effectiveness research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Uncertainties research |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Fine-Scale Algae & Water Quality Monitoring | Intensive water quality and algae monitoring directly related to the nutrient restoration experiment, starting in 2005. Eleven (11) sites will be monitored for nutrients, heavy metal concentrations and algae taxonomy and chlorophyll content. One site is upstream of the nutrient addition outflow pipe and 10 are located downstream of the nutrient outflow pipe. This will allow river managers to track the effects of the added nutrients at a fine-scale level. The timing of this monitoring will mirror the timeframe of the nutrient additions (a 12 week period from July-Sept.). Three water quality samples testing nutrient concentrations and one sample to test total metals concentration will be taken at each site weekly totalling 528 for the season. Six algae core samples to estimate cholorphyll content will be taken at each site bi-weekly totalling 396 for the season. One algae core sample will be taken bi-weekly to monitor algal species composition at each of the 11 sites totalling 66 samples for the 12 week period. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $360,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Monitoring on Trout, Parker, and Long Canyon Creeks | On going monitoring of water quality, periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish community dynamicsas part of tributary assesssment and restoration activities. Water quality and periphyton will be monitored monthly from April to October, while macroinvertebrates and fish will be sampled once yearly, during the fall season. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $216,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Tributaries) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research Secondary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend monitoring |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Kootenai River Ecosystem Project DataBase | Any work that maintains or improves the security, quality, accessibility, or utility of data in a structured database. Includes creation of relational databases; creation of computer applications to manage data, creation of standardized data formats, management of the data within the database, database hardware/software maintenance and improvement, QA/QC, buidling and maitaining connectivity with interrelated applications (e.g., GIS, web portals), and creation of metadata/documentation and user-support materials, etc. This applies both to larger regional, secondary databases and to local primary databases (can include spreadsheets) maintained on desktops for individual projects. This WE will continue work to maintain and further develop a web-based database to store the large volume of data generated by the Kootenai Tribe's Ecosystem Project responsible for monitoring water quality and the biological trophic levels within the river at 14 sites. Information generated from the KTOI's monitoring program will be organized and sent to the database manager to the web-based database during and after the fieldseason by project staff. The database management (uploading to web and some Quality Control measures) are conducted by Statistical Consulting Services, Inc. based in Clarkston, WA. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $70,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Kokanee Genetic Analyses--S.P. Cramer and Assoc., Inc. | These activities apply analytical tools to render meaning from data for making better management decisions. They go beyond data summaries. Often involves tests of statistical significance and may include modeling, indices, and synthesis. Typically culminates in resource managment recommendations presented in a report of research/evaluation findings or analyses presented as formal publications. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $27,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Tributaries) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Statistical Analyses of Trophic & Water Chemistry Data | These activities apply analytical tools to render meaning from data for making better management decisions. They go beyond data summaries. Often involves tests of statistical significance and may include modeling, indices, and synthesis. Typically culminates in resource managment recommendations presented in a report of research/evaluation findings or analyses presented as formal publications. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $80,000 |
|
Biological objectives Biomonitoring and Evaluation (Mainstem) |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and trend monitoring Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness research |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | NEPA Work for River Restoration Activities | Covers any work by the Contractor to assemble, gather, acquire, or prepare documents in support of obtaining environmental compliance from BPA (such as filling out a NEPA Checklist, providing maps, drafting a Biological Assessment, obtaining permits, conducting public involvement activities, completing an archaeological survey, etc.). In all cases, environmental compliance work must be separated from all other work. It is not permitted to combine environmental compliance activities with any other work element. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Hatchery Fish | Plant Eyed Kokanee Eggs | BC Ministry staff will plant 3,000,000 eyed kokanee eggs in several tributaries to the South Arm of Kootenay Lake in October 2007 to October 2010. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $32,600 |
|
Biological objectives Restore System Productivity (Kootenay Lake) |
Metrics * Incubation: # fertilized eggs into incubation program.: 3,000,000 |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Assistance with Reporting, Publications, and Public Relations Documents | This applies to two general types of scientific publications: 1) Manuscripts being submitted for publication in a scientific journal and 2) Final technical reports. The latter category includes research and evaluation reports, and higher-level programmatic reviews. Monitoring reports (e.g., updated annual escapement counts) are usually considered part of annual progress reports. "Analysis" typically involves hypothesis testing and/or tests of statistical significance in differences across groups/treatments or time that directly support decisions regarding resource or program/project management. This contrasts with reports that primarily present raw or summarized data (including means, variances, and trends). Preliminary analyses are reported as progress toward Final Scientific Findings reports and should be covered by WE# 132: Produce Annual Report. | 6/1/2007 | 5/31/2010 | $135,000 |
|
Biological objectives Coordination, Outreach and Information Exchange |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 5 FTE | $137,310 | $141,430 | $145,673 |
| Fringe Benefits | 33 % Personnel | $45,312 | $46,672 | $48,072 |
| Supplies | field, lab, office supplies | $5,000 | $5,500 | $6,000 |
| Travel | IKERT, NABS, AFS | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
| Capital Equipment | Truck purchase (07) | $30,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Overhead | 60% of Personnel | $82,386 | $84,858 | $87,404 |
| Other | B.C. Ministry Environment | $818,089 | $818,089 | $818,089 |
| Other | Statistical Consulting Services, Inc | $72,000 | $72,000 | $72,000 |
| Other | S.P. Cramer and Associates, Inc. | $70,000 | $70,000 | $100,000 |
| Other | Ward and Associate, Inc. | $60,000 | $70,000 | $75,000 |
| Other | Free Run Aquatic Research, Inc. | $115,000 | $115,000 | $120,000 |
| Other | Ecoanalysts, Inc. | $140,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 |
| Other | Dolecki Taxonmomy, Inc. | $30,000 | $32,000 | $32,000 |
| Other | U. Idaho, Holm Research Lab | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| Other | Aquatic Research Inc., Water quality analyses | $60,000 | $55,000 | $55,000 |
| Other | Graduate Research Stipend, Phd or Post Doctoral Fellow | $33,007 | $33,007 | $32,968 |
| Other | EQUIPMENT-PROPERTY MAINTENANCE (including nutrient drip station), Insurance | $23,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 |
| Other | Land Lease, Nutrient Addition Site | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
| Other | Truck Lease (if Capital Equipment moratorium not lifted) | $6,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 |
| Totals | $1,785,104 | $1,782,556 | $1,831,206 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $5,398,866 |
| Total work element budget: | $5,398,866 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) | Watershed M & E | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Pro. | North Arm Kootenay Lake Fertilization and coordination | $800,000 | $800,000 | $800,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Idaho Dept. Fish and Game | support nutrient restoration, monitoring and evaluation | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| United Columbia Tribes (UCUT) | Funding | $60,000 | $60,000 | $60,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $935,000 | $935,000 | $935,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $2,000,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $2,000,000 |
Comments: Nutrient Restoration likely to continue after 5 year experiment ends in 2009, addition nutrient injection stations may be needed. |
Future O&M costs: Additional Nutrient drip stations are a possibility, especially in upriver locations toward the base of Libby Dam where phosphorus levels are depressed due to nutrient retention in Libby Reservoir.
Termination date: None noted
Comments: This project provides direct mitigation for lost nutrients and biological productivity resulting from the construction and operation of Libby Dam and therefore should be implemented as long as Libby Dam is in place.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| KTOI COMMENTS TO ISRP-199404900 | 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] | ||||||
| $1,695,800 | $1,695,800 | $1,695,800 | $5,087,400 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $1,695,800 | $1,695,800 | $1,695,800 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is a seemingly worthwhile proposal that suffers from lack of results to support its continuation and expansion. The problem identified is loss of productivity (at all ecosystem levels) as a result of land and water management practices. Early studies have led to the conclusion that nutrients limit production of valuable fish populations. Justification includes the Fish and Wildlife Program, Kootenai subbasin plan, FWS BiOp for white sturgeon, and the Kootenai River Network. The narrative and tables on interactions with the several other projects on the Kootenai are helpful. Fertilizer application is used experimentally in this project to test whether nutrients are limiting productivity at various levels in the Kootenai River ecosystem, including the fish. Results of the 2004 application are available but not yet provided for review. It seems essential that project proponents have these analyses completed and presented at the earliest possible date even at the expense of forgoing further (sequential) applications. The proposal would benefit from greater discussion of other potentially important limiting factors such as discharge, and opossum shrimp abundance trends and relations with kokanee salmon populations. The proposal demonstrates much enthusiasm for ecosystem improvement with an impressive list of potential contributors. It is not clear at what point the project is moving from experiment to large-scale implementation. Before moving to implementation the sponsors need a synthesis of the results of their research. The proposed implementation objectives should not be funded until the results of the experiment are reported and reviewed by the ISRP. This is an important project that has precedent and application for river fertilization in other areas. A response is needed for better reporting of results. The proposal provides a fairly clear presentation of project history but no data are presented regarding fish abundances and diversity. No data were found to describe Mysis relicta abundance and trends. For a project of this size and longevity the history is remarkably devoid of results in terms of synthesized data and evidence of benefits to fish. The proposal states: "The first year of experimental river fertilization was a success, and in addition to preparing FY07-09 project proposals, project personnel are busy analyzing 2005 experimental data to quantify and characterize the biological and ecological responses to the long-awaited first year of experimental nutrient addition in the Kootenai River." Data should be provided to show why the river fertilization was a "success." Results from this experimental river fertilization are needed before the project moves into full implementation. The ISRP would like to see evidence to support statements like: fish abundance, fish body condition, and invertebrate abundance in project area "lags well behind similar-sized regional rivers" (p 2, 31) with the implication that Libby Dam is the cause. This is simplistic and at best misleading in that it disregards edaphic factors. To imply that Kootenai River invertebrate numbers should be similar to those of streams like the Henrys Fork in Idaho is not well supported. Objectives seem mixed. The project seems to be described in some instances as a continuing mitigation project and in others as a research project. It really is a research project that should be associated with providing evidence for decision end-points. The data are now available but not included here to evaluate the 2004 fertilizer application. These data should be made available as soon as possible to provide guidance as to whether or not there is any reason to continue the treatment - a treatment that could have unintended consequences. Objectives include things such as restoring productivity to pre-dam levels including abundances of several species of fish, but timelines are not associated with objectives. The project apparently intends to continue on into the foreseeable future and to alter its direction via adaptive management as results of various trials become available. This seems pretty loose. One objective is to build a spawning channel; this doesn't seem justified if the limiting factor is nutrient levels. A response is needed on justification for the spawning channel. It is not clear how the kokanee egg planting fits with the rest of the proposal. The methods are questionable for the egg planting. Sponsors should provide justification for the egg planting in general and for putting 60,000 eggs in one place. Monitoring and evaluation for success are not well described. The project description reported that sampling will provide the statistical rigor necessary to make reliable decisions. Results of monitoring to-date were not presented to show what level of change would be detectable in the post-treatment sampling. Reviewers need to see results from the experimental river fertilization before this project moves into full implementation. A response should estimate how many years of trial fertilization is needed for an appropriate experiment before the research results warrant a management decision whether to implement routine fertilization. Sponsors should provide a timetable for a synthesis of research results, which would lead to a proposal for implementation.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This is a worthwhile proposal that initially suffered from lack of reporting of results to support its continuation and expansion. The excellent response provided the necessary information and illustrates the kind of material that should be in the initial proposal. The problem identified is loss of productivity (at all ecosystem levels) as a result of land and water management practices, especially Libby Dam. Early studies have led to the conclusion that nutrients limit production of valuable fish populations. Fertilizer application is used experimentally in this project to test whether nutrients are limiting productivity at various levels in the Kootenai River ecosystem, including the fish. Justification includes the Fish and Wildlife Program, Kootenai subbasin plan, FWS BiOp for white sturgeon, and the Kootenai River Network. The narrative and tables on interactions with the several other projects on the Kootenai are helpful. The proposal demonstrates much enthusiasm for ecosystem improvement with an impressive list of potential contributors. The response significantly answers the ISRP's concerns about the timing of the project with respect to experiments and implementation, and provides data and summary results for the work accomplished so far. The timeline in Table 1 is especially helpful, and we recommend that such a table be used in subsequent proposals and progress reports. It is clear now that this is a truly experimental phase and will continue to be so through the lifetime of this funding cycle. Results from the Kootenay Lake experiment still seem rather scant. Since phosphorus seems to be the limiting nutrient, we are still surprised that fertilization of the Kootenai River is heavy on nitrogen. Algae seem to have responded to nutrient addition, but the chemical results seem to require more interpretation. There was a useful discussion of other limiting factors and the multi-agency approach to evaluating them. The database development seems appropriate for assembling the results. The comprehensive discussion of fishery impacts since Libby Dam is informative and supportive of the existence of detrimental effects. Depleted nutrients are likely part of the picture, which justifies the well-planned research. The logic of planting kokanee eggs and creating a spawning channel is clearer in the response, but that work is still somewhat oddly placed in this proposal. The explanations of sampling sizes for monitoring help clarify this issue. The ISRP appreciates the additional clarifying information.