FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200200200
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 |
|---|---|
| 24009 Narrative | Narrative |
| 24009 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho |
| Proposal ID | 200200200 |
| Organization | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gary Barton |
| Mailing address | 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 |
| Phone / email | 2534283600 / gbarton@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Sue Ireland |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / |
| Short description | Construct sediment transport models to assess the feasibility to enhance white sturgeon spawning substrate habitat, Kootenai R., ID. Study temporal/transient changes in sediment type, bedform, and eroision/depostion on spawning substrate. |
| Target species | Kootenai River white stugeon(ESA) population and other native fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.93 | -116.46 | Kootenai River |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | USGS measured the spatial distribution of river velocities using an acoustic doppler current profiler during white sturgeon spawning near Bonners Ferry. |
| 1999 | USGS collected seismic profiles of the Kootenai River substrate during white sturgeon spawning near Bonners Ferry. |
| 2000 | USGS collected subbottom profiles and cored river botom sediments at 34 sites in the white sturgeon spawning reach. USGS is using these data and historical data to characterize the substrate of the Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning habitat. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8806400 | KTOI is implementing the conservation aquaculture program to prevent extinction, and begin rebuilding age class structure of kootenai R. white sturgeon. Objectives include identifying best management options to enhance aquatic ecosystem. | USGS made available to this project stream flow and baseline geomorphological substrate data that is necessary to develop, evaluate, test, and analyze solutions to ecosystem problems. |
| 9404900 | KTOI is also performing assessments, data analysis, and research in order to identify best management strategies to enhance aquatic biota in the Kootenai River ecosystem to recover native species assemblages across multiple trophic levels | USGS made available to theis project stream flow and baseline geomorphological substrate data that is necessary to develop, evaluate, test, and analyze solutions to ecosystem problems. |
| 8806500 | Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations project | USGS measured the spatial distribution of river velocities using an acoustic doppler current profiler and collected seismic profiles of the substrate during white sturgeon spawning near Bonners Ferry. |
| 8346700 | Libby Reservoir Levels and Impact on Resident Fish project. Objectives includes calibrating simulations of hydraulic conditions and surveying the river habitat | USGS data collected during FY1997 and FY1998 and the data collection proposed herein support these project objectives |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Project planning and develop public web site for positing progress reports, data, and project products | 0.3 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Monitor and create animation of sediment transport and bedform movement in sturgeon spawning habitat | 2.1. Review the hydraulic and fluvial sediment data to improve design of monitoring efforts | 0.3 | $3,000 | |
| 2.2 Measure stream flow, suspended sediment load and bed load at the USGS Bonners Ferry gage | 1.7 | $45,000 | ||
| 2.3 Reactivate USGS Copeland gage. Measure periodic stream flow, suspended sediment load and bedload | 1.7 | $17,000 | ||
| 2.4 Conduct bathymetry survey and generate a high-resolution GIS bathymetry map of the white sturgeon substrate habitat | 0.5 | $30,000 | ||
| 2.5 Monitor the size and movement of bedforms at select spawning sites | 1.7 | $20,000 | ||
| 2.6 Create animation of actual bedform movement on sturgeon spawning substrate habitat. | 1.7 | $8,000 | ||
| 2.7 Conduct sieve analysis on a subset of archived Kootenai River substrate sediment samples. | 1.0 | $3,000 | ||
| 2.8 Sample Kootenai River substrate between Deep Creek and the interstate bridge at Bonners Ferry. Sample over a range of flow conditions to monitor the transition zone between sand and gravel substrate. Conduct sieve analysis on substrate samples | 1.0 | $4,000 | ||
| 3. Describe availability and movement of fluvial sediment through white sturgeon spawning habitat and identify where habitat substrate is currently aggrading, degrading, and stable | 3.1 Quantify the composition and quantity of fluvial sediment being deposited, resuspended, and transported through the white sturgeon spawning habitat | 1.5 | $20,000 | |
| 3.2 Develop relations, graphical or otherwise, that grossly characterize fluvial sediment transport and bedform development for a range of flow condition on the Kootenai R. | 1.5 | $4,000 | ||
| 3.3 Identify areas where spawning habitat substrate is currently aggrading, degrading, or is stable | 2 | $15,000 | ||
| 4. Develop sediment-transport models, develop spawning habitat substrate improvement scenarios, and assess the feasibility of habitat enhancement | 4.1 Construct a 1-dimensional sediment- transport model (USGS code) and calibrate to historic and recently collected fluvial-sediment and bathymetry data | 1.5 | $51,700 | |
| 4.2 Use the 1-dimensional sediment-transport model to predict future substrate elevations, bedforms, and substrate sediment composition | .5 | $15,000 | ||
| 4.3. Develop spawning habitat substrate improvement scenarios | .5 | $5,000 | ||
| 4.4 Construct and calibrate a quasi 3-dimensional sediment-transport model (USGS) for one or more spawning subreach | 1.5 | $49,300 | ||
| 4.5 Conduct predictive quasi 3-dimensional sediment-transport simulations to assess the efficacy of spawning habitat substrate enhancement | .5 | $15,000 | ||
| 5. Prepare peer review reports and post on public web page | 1.5 | $40,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning and develop public web site for positing progress reports, data, and project products | 2001 | 2001 | $5,000 |
| 2. Monitor and create animation of sediment transport and bedform movement in sturgeon spawning habitat | 2001 | 2002 | $120,000 |
| 3. Describe availability and movement of fluvial sediment through white sturgeon spawning habitat and identify where habitat substrate is currently aggrading, degrading, and stable | 2001 | 2002 | $34,000 |
| 4. Develop sediment-transport models, develop spawning habitat substrate improvement scenarios, and assess the feasibility of habitat enhancement | 2002 | 2003 | $126,000 |
| 5. Prepare peer review reports and post on public web page | 2002 | 2003 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement Phase II - Design, construction, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of in-stream structures which would potentially enhance habitat for white sturgeon spawning. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,500,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | $1,000,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement Phase II - Design, construction, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of in-stream structures which would potentially enhance habitat for white sturgeon spawning. | 2004 | 2006 | $180,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $60,000 | $60,000 | $60,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 6 | $94,000 |
| Fringe | $20,500 | |
| Supplies | $23,000 | |
| Travel | $10,000 | |
| Indirect | $137,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $65,500 | |
| $350,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $350,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $350,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USGS | $185,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed to justify the large effort focused on sediment dynamics when it is not clear biologically that this is the critical element. This is a resubmitted, new proposal by the U.S. Geological Survey to characterize sediment in the mainstem Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning areas, downstream of Libby Dam in the vicinity of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. The proposition is that sediment delivery and movement in the channel system has been significantly modified by Libby Dam, the specifics of the effects on sturgeon bottom habitat are hypothesized but not well documented and quantified, and that research is needed to plan for habitat remediation (in a Phase II to be done separately). This is a component of the overall sturgeon work in the lower Kootenai River, especially Project 198806400.This year's proposal addresses the main concern of last year's ISRP review, that the FY 2001 proposal was not well linked to an overall umbrella for the Kootenai River work. Although the work proposed this time appears to be essentially the same as the previous proposal, with some refinements, this proposal explicitly links the work to items called for in the USFWS Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan for white sturgeon and the Subbasin Summary. The objectives are matched directly to statements and requirement given in these documents. The regional context is thus much clearer and the apparent need well established.
However, the technical and scientific background to justify such a strong focus on sediment dynamics is weak. Despite well-recognized problems with incubation success of sturgeon eggs, the proposal does not make a compelling argument nor present sufficient evidence that this problem is caused by sedimentation (as ISRP noted last year, also). No evidence is presented that hard substrate is actually used for egg attachment here or elsewhere. A previous study of velocities in the vicinity of the proposed work has not been published except as an abstract, and no summary data from it are presented in the proposal. Other studies were noted in the rationale section, but they were not used directly as supporting evidence for the importance of sedimentary substrate in this case. The proposal assumes that the sediment hypothesis for lack of incubation success is correct without suggesting any alternative hypotheses that might be addressed by the research. What if sediment dynamics has nothing to do with reproductive success? If it does not, then the benefit to fish and wildlife from the detailed sediment study could be nil, regardless of the opinions in the BiOp, Recovery Plan, and Subbasin Summary. The tribe should perhaps pursue other aspects of the effort before implementing this large task. The sediment model can be used to measure turbulence, sediment transport, etc., which need to be better tied to the biological needs of the sturgeon.
Other criteria are met. Agency cooperation and coordination now seem excellent. Objectives and tasks are clear and well organized. Methods are ok, but brief. Monitoring and evaluation are addressed briefly. Personnel resumes are excellent. Information transfer got first attention in the objectives (web site).
Comment:
This is a multi-phase project that should be funded and implemented in a stepwise fashion. Phase 1, development of the model, should be completed and presented to CBFWA prior to funding any channel modifications. The model will complement other sturgeon restoration activities in the subbasin, however, the habitat fixes may be out of sync with other activities. Some portions of the model may be excessive and unnecessary for decision making (i.e.. 3D sediment transport imagery).Comment:
Fundable, the ISRP concerns are addressed. This is a good response, bolstered by numerous literature references. The overall program's work has a logic of accumulated evidence that has progressed to the hypothesis for egg suffocation on shifting sediments. The sediment hypothesis seems sufficiently supported by solid evidence and anecdotal observations to warrant further testing. Other hypotheses may still emerge but none are fully formulated yet.In the response, the authors often lift an entire section from a report that could have been summarized in the original proposal (e.g. the sections on sediment dynamics on recruitment failure, egg attachment on substrate, and the velocity data). If the authors had provided this complete information in the original proposal these review questions would not have arisen.
Comment:
Agree with ISRP and CBFWA recommendation to fund and will meet BiOp requirements.Comment:
Comment:
Bonneville will fund... as recommended to meet requirements of the USFWS's BiOp as described in the Action Agencies 2002 Annual Implementation Plan.Comment:
Accruals will be a little low. Phase 2 - Contingent on modeling results and recovery team decisions. Timing of 04 work dependant on pending decisions: sponsor gave best estimate. COE obligation also.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $260,000 | $324,130 | $324,130 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website