FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200200800
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 |
|---|---|
| 24010 Narrative | Narrative |
| 24010 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 | Reconnection of floodplain slough habitat to the Kootenai River |
| Proposal ID | 200200800 |
| Organization | Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Scott Soults |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1269 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 |
| Phone / email | 2082673620 / soults@kootenai.org or jascott@jub.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Scott Soults |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
| Short description | Assess the feasibility and options for reconnecting slough habitat that has been isolated from the Kootenai River by dikes. |
| Target species | Kootenai River white sturgeon, burbot, rainbow trout, kokanee, many waterfowl species, many invertebrate species. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.8065 | -116.3847 | Ball Creek Ranch Slough |
| 48.6875 | -116.2565 | Webber Slough |
| 48.9282 | -116.4373 | Jerome Slu |
| 48.9792 | -116.5295 | Smith Creek Channel |
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 |
|---|---|
| New project proposal |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8806400 | Kootenai River White Sturgeon Conservation Aquaculture. | Working jointly to recover white sturgeon. |
| 8806500 | Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations | Working jointly to recover white sturgeon |
| 9404900 | Improve the Kootenai River Ecosystem | Working jointly to recover white sturgeon |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify the location of the initial reconnection site. | $0 | |||
| 1 | a. Evaluate potential slough sites and estimate the ecological benefit reconnection will provide for each potential site. | 1 | $4,000 | Yes |
| 1 | b. Determine the structural and physical feasibility of reconnecting the potential slough sites. River hydraulic data, Surface water profiles, field boring of dike, geotechnical evaluation of the dike, structural concept and design. | 1 | $40,000 | Yes |
| 1 | c. Using the Kootenai River Network as a working group, create a priority list of potential sloughs for reconnection. | 1 | $5,080 | Yes |
| 1 | d. Complete appropriate landowner agreements to facilitate construction and long-term protection and maintenance of enhanced habitat. | 1 | $5,080 | Yes |
| 2. Establish baseline conditions in the area to be re-connected. | $0 | |||
| 2 | a. Set up index sites and monitor primary production, nutrient concentrations, secondary production, and fish community. | 1 | $29,600 | Yes |
| 2 | b. Conduct a formal land survey of the physical features of the selected site. | 1 | $12,000 | Yes |
| 3. Complete a plan to design and implement re-connection at the selected site. | $0 | |||
| 3 | a. Report baseline conditions based on data collected in Objective 2. | 1 | $8,000 | Yes |
| 3 | b. Outline project specific objectives, timelines, and define success. | 1 | $7,280 | Yes |
| 3 | c. Prepare study design and cost that will thoroughly monitor and precisely evaluate success indicators as described. | 1 | $7,280 | Yes |
| 3 | d. Prepare a cost estimate for engineered design and construction of reconnection. | 1 | $3,000 | Yes |
| 3 | e. Prepare documents to complete all appropriate permits. | 1 | $11,000 | Yes |
| 4. Fringe and indirect costs | a. Fringe costs | 1 | $2,746 | |
| b. Indirect costs | 1 | $4,908 |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design/construct a connection between the Kootenai River and an adjacent slough. Cost estimates for design and construction are highly variable. | 2003 | 2003 | $500,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $500,000 |
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. Monitor project and report results | 2003 | 2006 | $180,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $60,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.25 @ $16/hr | $8,320 |
| Fringe | 33% of salaries | $2,746 |
| Indirect | 59% salaries | $4,908 |
| Subcontractor | For tasks identified in Section 4, including lab work and sample analysis. | $124,000 |
| $139,974 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $139,974 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $139,974 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Construction and implementation is scheduled to occur in 2003, however costs are unknown. Without knowing the specific site and specific structure design, it is difficult to predict design/construction costs. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. will be contracted to implement this project. J-U-B has significant experience working in the Kootenai Basin and projects similar to this throughout the Northwestern states. Budget estimates were calculated based on time estimates that would be allocated to each task by different personnel. Hourly rates range from $38/hr to $120/hr depending of the personnel assigned to each task. A detailed description of J-U-B's billing and cost break down is available upon request. Processing water quality samples, invertebrate samples, zooplankton samples, and primary production samples in local labs was estimated to cost $10,400 and comprises that amount of the budget estimate outlined in task 2a of Section 4.
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:
Fundable in part for first stage of proposal if response is received that addresses the ISRP's concerns. This is a proposal to restore some of the natural function of the Kootenai River upstream of Kootenay Lake via reconnection of off-stream sloughs. Diking and channelization of this portion of the river have removed much of the historical habitat, and operation of Libby Dam upstream has further modified function of the stream system through regulation of the natural hydrograph. The proposal would conduct a feasibility study in the first year. The proposal (in common with many others) desperately needs a site map. The technical/scientific background gives a good scientific basis for the proposed effort as it relates to sturgeon. The section could have given more background information on the broad flood-pulse concept that generically relates the importance of river ecology to the floodplain, especially during high-water episodes. Other Kootenai River white sturgeon proposals do a better job describing this fundamental concept, which is the real reason for doing the project. On the other hand, the rationale and significance to regional programs are well described, although the Council's FWP is inexplicably not referenced. The project history section, while not required for new projects like this, discusses the relevant historical underpinnings of this proposal. The objectives section lists objectives from the Subbasin Summary but does not specifically relate them to the project's objectives (thus leaving it to the reviewer to make the connections). This is a deficiency that should be corrected. Otherwise, the objectives and tasks are clearly spelled out (and match in parts 1 & 2).One shortcoming of the proposal is that similar work outside the region (notably within the Mississippi River basin) is not mentioned, and may well be unknown to the proposers. There is no need to "reinvent" relevant experience elsewhere, which is documented in the literature. An even more glaring shortcoming is that the proposal makes no attempt whatever to address the problem of possible remobilization of chemical pollutants. This is mentioned as a potential problem, but never addressed. Why not? What are the water quality implications of chemical contamination of the sloughs that would be reconnected to the main channel? This problem must be addressed in the feasibility study, or some indication must be provided of how it will be addressed elsewhere. Furthermore, this is clearly a two-phase project. The ISRP can only support funding of the feasibility phase (year 1), provided that the above-mentioned deficiencies in the proposal are addressed. Subsequent funding should be made provisional on review following completion of the feasibility study, i.e., approve only first year funding at this point.
Comment:
Comment:
The feasibility phase of the project should be funded as a high priority. Subsequent funding should be conditional on an interim ISRP review after the feasibility phase (similar to the 3-Step reviews of artificial production projects) is complete. In general, the response is adequate. It provides missing information on location and the flood-pulse concept, although the description of the flood pulse concept and its relevance are barely adequate. The connection between objectives in the Subbasin Summary and the proposal is better, if still not well written. The response is marginally successful in placing the proposal in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Program. Steps have been taken since the ISRP review to communicate with others doing floodplain restoration, and it is understandable that full understanding of their work is not yet achieved such as what aspect of knowledge from these projects would be transferred. The prospect of chemical contamination is discussed in the response, as is the phasing of the work and the reviews.This project could have immense benefit for the ecosystem of the lower Kootenai River. The sturgeon-spawning problem, for example, is that eggs and larvae do not have access to such sloughs any more. Our recommendation for an interim review is not an indication of our lack of faith in this idea, but recognition that the work needs review before three years are up, hopefully so the work (and the general concept proposed in several other proposals) can proceed.
CBFWA Comments: This project will investigate the feasibility of an alternative for sturgeon recovery. The province review group felt that the implementation of Project 24021 is necessary prior to funding Project 24010. In addition, the review group struggled with understanding the objectives of the proposed work since the identified objectives were really tasks. As it is currently written, the project should be categorized as a "Recommended Action". The USFWS White Sturgeon Recovery Team has identified this as a high priority action. It is essential for this project to be implemented if Project 24021 identifies reconnection of the flood plain as a high priority.
Comment:
- Agree with ISRP to fund the feasibility phase of this project and agree with the CBFWA recommendation to fund this in conjunction with 24021 to meet BiOp requirements.Comment:
The ISRP disagreed with CBFWA's "recommended action" prioritization for project 24010, and suggests that this white sturgeon project be elevated to "high priority." The Bonneville comments state that it too would recommend a high priority designation for the project because it believes that it has direct applicability to the sturgeon ESA requirements.
Council recommendation: Recommend funding the project, subject to the conditions stated by the ISRP (to be made contract terms) if the USFWS confirms in writing to that the project is a Bonneville ESA responsibility.
Comment:
Bonneville intends to fund the feasibility phase of this project because it will fill an important information gap identified in the subbasin summary. Future funding will be based upon the M&E results of the feasibility phase and the results of subbasin planning.Comment:
2002 no signed contract until summer. For 2003 research rolled over. One year delayed. 05 amount contingent on 2004 results. ISRP rec to combine with 200203900 (project level - these are tracking together via design). RealignmentComment:
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: |
| $259,973 | $259,973 | $259,973 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website