FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200201100

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
24021 Narrative	Narrative
24021 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	Implement Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation on the Lower Kootenai River Watershed Ecosystem
Proposal ID	200201100
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
Manager authorizing this project	Scott Soults
Review cycle	Mountain Columbia
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short description	Pilot project to assess operational losses with long-term mitigation, protection, enhancement, rehabilitation in floodplain ecosystems on the Lower Kootenai River Watershed.
Target species	Black bear, moose, beaver, mink, river otter, muskrat, white-tailed deer, yellow warbler, elk

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
48.86	-116.39	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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
198806400	Experimental Sturgeon Hatchery and Sturgeon Research	Lower Kootenai River Watershed research
199404900	Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvements	Lower Kootenai River Watershed research
199206100	Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project	Mitigation project with similar criteria
198905200	Montana Wildlife Trust	Wildlife mitigation trust fund

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1) Review, analyze and select research projects that will best assess operational losses in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed and are regionally applicable.	(a) Review and consolidate literature on past operational loss assessment designs, activities, and related biological information.	2002	$2,500
	(b) Develop a list of qualified personnel, solicit involvement and implement a Research Design Review Team (RDRT) to review and select research projects that will best assess operational losses in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed and are regionally appl	2002	$3,500
	(c) RDRT develop criteria for ranking and selection of operational loss assessments projects.	2002	$4,500	Yes
	(d) RDRT develop and write Request For Proposals (RFP) soliciting for operational loss assessment projects.	2002	$2,500	Yes
	(e) RDRT develop a vendor list and submit RFP to a broad base of research professionals.	2002	$650	Yes
	(f) RDRT review, rank and select the “top 10” research design proposals for operational loss studies.	2002	$2,500	Yes
	(g) RDRT organize and implement an open review forum (Operational Loss Symposium) for presentations, RDRT final review and selection of research projects that best assess operational losses in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed	2002	$6,000	Yes
	(h) Implement a minimum of two research projects that best assess operational losses in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed and are regionally applicable.	2003	$0	Yes
2)Assess historic (early 1900’s) and current condition and status of floodplain vegetation types, slough, pocket water and associated watercourses within the Lower Kootenai River Watershed by 2003.	(a) Review and consolidate literature on historic vegetation communities within the lower Kootenai River Watershed floodplain.	2002	$5,000
	(b) Conduct interviews of long time residents, Tribal members and elders to document local knowledge of historic Lower Kootenai Watershed stream courses and plant communities.	2002	$10,000
	(c) Develop an inventory of historical aerial photographs, site-specific photos for the Lower Kootenai Watershed, natural analogue sites and surrounding areas.	2002	$1,000
	(d) Consolidate original streambed and floodplain survey data existing for the Lower Kootenai Watershed (i.e., pre-channelization and land leveling).	2002	$18,000
	(e) Create a Geographical Information System (GIS) layer by digitizing tributaries, sloughs, pocket water and floodplain topography before channelization and land leveling (pre 1920’s surveys and 1928 GLO maps).	2002	$18,500	Yes
3) Produce hydrologic models for the floodplain and each natural analogue stream course by 2003.	(a) Conduct assessments of tributary, slough and oxbow and river channel functions.	2002	$28,900	Yes
	(b) Identify a reference reach with two full meanders for each tributary/slough/oxbow/watercourse to be restored (or similar fluvial geomorphology model may be utilized to assess other factor such as rearing habitat, etc.).	2002	$20,000
	(c) Develop hydrologic models based on the surveyed cross-sections of reference reaches (i.e., fluvial geomorphology, tributary and slough interactions).	2002	$0	Yes
	(d) Develop a GIS layer of historical native vegetation communities and distributions within the Lower Kootenai Watershed utilizing EDT data and soils data.	2003	$0	Yes
	(e) EPA Work - Assessment of vegetation and stratification of environments on the Kootenai River dike system.	2002	$0
	(f) Assess and compare impacts of regulated and unregulated water levels on semiaquatic furbearers.	2002-2003	$32,856
	(g) Assess the braided and meandering Lower Kootenai River reaches from a riparian vegetation life stage analysis.	2002	$20,000
4) Develop a framework for regional floodplain operational loss assessments by 2004, with the use of Lower Kootenai River floodplain operational assessment, EDT, and normative analogue comparisons during 2003.	(a) Detail floodplain potential, priority restoration and protection areas in the Lower Kootenai Watershed using historical and existing vegetation coverage, EDT, analogue comparisons and current land ownership.	2002	$10,000	Yes
	(b) Detail a strategy for dike soil stabilization and riparian vegetation propagation potentials, priority restoration and protection areas along the Lower Kootenai River Watershed dike system.	2003	$0	Yes
	(c) Initiate analysis and peer review of operational loss assessment estimation techniques for regional review.	2003-2004	$0
	(d) Produce publication of historical vegetation patterns and associations in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed.	2004	$0
5)Plan and establish a trust fund or other funding strategy for securing management rights, and operations and maintenance to mitigate priority floodplain habitat areas by 2005.	(a) Establish a trust fund to secure management rights.	2005	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1) Review, analyze and select research projects that will best assess operational losses in the Lower Kootenai River Watershed and are regionally applicable.	0		$0
2)Assess historic (early 1900’s) and current condition and status of floodplain vegetation types, slough, pocket water and associated watercourses within the Lower Kootenai River Watershed by 2003.	2003	2003	$36,450
3) Produce hydrologic models for the floodplain and each natural analogue stream course by 2003.	2002	2003	$85,760
4) Develop a framework for regional floodplain operational loss assessments by 2004, with the use of Lower Kootenai River floodplain operational assessment, EDT, and normative analogue comparisons during 2003.	2003	2004	$29,400
5)Plan and establish a trust fund or other funding strategy for securing management rights, and operations and maintenance to mitigate priority floodplain habitat areas by 2005.	2005	2006	$1,000,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$648,500	$106,500	$1,125,000	$1,150,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1) By year10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of the riparian habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with the no new net losses of riparian habitat.	(a) Design management plan, HEP survey, Rehabilitate with shrubs, grass and other vegetation associated with high priority habitat.	ongoing after 2005	$0
2) By year 10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of the wetland habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of wetland habitat.	(a) Design management plan, HEP survey, Rehabilitate with shrubs, grass and other vegetation associated with high priority habitat.	ongoing after 2005	$0
3) By year 10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of grassland habitats lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of grassland habitats.	(a) Design management plan, HEP survey, Rehabilitate with shrubs, grass and other vegetation associated with high priority habitat.	ongoing after 2005	$0
4) By year 10, rehabilitate 20 percent or more of the aspen forest habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of aspen forest habitats.	(a) Design management plan, HEP survey, Rehabilitate with shrubs, grass and other vegetation associated with high priority habitat.	ongoing after 2005	$0
5) Promote potential for providing dual benefits to both fish and wildlife resources.	(a) Design management plan, HEP survey, Rehabilitate with shrubs, grass and other vegetation associated with high priority habitat.	ongoing after 2005	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1) By year10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of the riparian habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with the no new net losses of riparian habitat.	2005	2006	$5,000
2) By year 10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of the wetland habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of wetland habitat.	2005	2006	$5,000
3) By year 10, rehabilitate 15 percent or more of grassland habitats lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of grassland habitats.	2005	2006	$2,000
4) By year 10, rehabilitate 20 percent or more of the aspen forest habitat lost in the Kootenai subbasin with no new net losses of aspen forest habitats.	2005	2006	$2,500
5) Promote potential for providing dual benefits to both fish and wildlife resources.	2005	2006	$1,300

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2005	FY 2006
$15,800	$130,500

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1) Assist in the coordination and development of a Lower Kootenai River Watershed Council (Citizen/Technical Committee)	(a) assist facilitate technical group, present projects, research and attend meetings	ongoing	$2,728
2) Identify and evaluate effectiveness of existing local and regional conservation programs and funding mechanisms for floodplain, wetland and riparian protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities by 2003.	(a) Investigate local and regional Federal, State, County, and City or private organizations for grant and cost share program information	2003	$0
3) Detail a strategy for incorporation of floodplain restoration, rehabilitation in LKRWC watershed strategy by 2004.	(a) Present information, slideshows, data, materials to propose floodplain restoration and positive effects, education and information.	2004	$0
4) Promote long term benefits to fish and wildlife populations.	(a) Develop outreach programs, tours, slideshows, education and information exchanges with schools, etc.	2002	$450
5) Coordinate all project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation efforts and associated results with other regional and provincial fish and wildlife managers, BPA, and the NWPPC.	(a) Information exchange, attend BPA/NWPPC/CBFWA meetings and workshops, present data at professional meetings and workshops, etc.	ongoing	$3,280

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1) Assist in the coordination and development of a Lower Kootenai River Watershed Council (Citizen/Technical Committee)	2003	2006	$10,000
2) Identify and evaluate effectiveness of existing local and regional conservation programs and funding mechanisms for floodplain, wetland and riparian protection, rehabilitation and enhancement activities by 2003.	2003	2003	$4,000
3) Detail a strategy for incorporation of floodplain restoration, rehabilitation in LKRWC watershed strategy by 2004.	2004	2004	$2,100
4) Promote long term benefits to fish and wildlife populations.	2003	2006	$2,900
5) Coordinate all project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation efforts and associated results with other regional and provincial fish and wildlife managers, BPA, and the NWPPC.	2003	2006	$11,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$13,000	$8,000	$8,000	$29,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1) Develop a monitoring and evaluation protocol for determining effectiveness of implementation activities (i.e., CBFWA –wildlife manager document, etc.).	(a) Utilize CBFWA plans and incorporate site-specific strategies for water control structures, field computer tracking program (excel), HEP	ongoing	$0
2) Monitor trends in parameters for determining effectiveness of implementation activities.	(a) baseline surveys, HEP revisits, and field computer tracking program (excel)	ongoing	$0
3) Conduct evaluations of survival and growth of restoration and enhancement plantings.	(a) Field computer tracking program (excel), Survey small mammal damage, weed control survey	ongoing	$0
4) Conduct annual noxious weed monitoring.	(a) Coordinate with extension service on surveys, field computer tracking program (excel)	ongoing	$0
5) Monitor the overall effectiveness of the restoration projects.	(a) Photo points, field computer tracking program (excel and SAS)	ongoing	$0
6) Adapt management plans, strategies and objectives to sustain and promote benefits to wildlife populations and habitats.	(a) Re-tool field computer tracking program (excel and SAS), breeding bird surveys, transects for presence/absence	ongoing	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1) Develop a monitoring and evaluation protocol for determining effectiveness of implementation activities (i.e., CBFWA –wildlife manager document, etc.).	2005	2006	$2,000
2) Monitor trends in parameters for determining effectiveness of implementation activities.	2005	2006	$1,500
3) Conduct evaluations of survival and growth of restoration and enhancement plantings.	2005	2006	$2,000
4) Conduct annual noxious weed monitoring.	2005	2006	$4,000
5) Monitor the overall effectiveness of the restoration projects.	2005	2006	$1,000
6) Adapt management plans, strategies and objectives to sustain and promote benefits to wildlife populations and habitats.	2005	2006	$1,500

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2005	FY 2006
$12,000	$12,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2	$53,600
Fringe	.33	$18,224
Supplies	leased truck, field equip, etc.	$8,200
Travel	travel and training	$5,000
Indirect	salary & benefits	$40,940
Capital	boat	$4,500
NEPA		$0
Subcontractor		$62,400
		$192,864

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$192,864
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$192,864
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Feb 9, 2001

Comment:

Fundable but a response is needed. This is a proposal to assess the losses of ecological function in the Lower Kootenai River watershed due to historic diking, land management, and operation of Libby Dam. The proposal notes various ways in which control of flooding has affected the ecological function of the system. The proposal would develop various data sets, models, etc to help to better understand the effects of those changes. The intent is to use this information to develop a scientifically grounded plan for restoration of the most critical off-channel habitats and functions for fish and wildlife. The proposal does a good job of integrating both fish and wildlife values, although the main focus here is for wildlife. The background is thorough, with many references to scientific literature in fish, wildlife, geography and hydrology. The significance to regional programs is made quite clear, with adequate references to what might be called habitat listing by various organizations, ties to tribal history, the old and new Fish and Wildlife Program (with section cites), and the Subbasin Summary (with quotes). There is an excellent listing and short paragraphs on related projects and proposals including more than just BPA (probably the most thorough listing of any proposal in the set). The objectives are appropriate and well presented, with detailed tasks and nicely identified methods for each. Monitoring and evaluation is prominent. Facilities, equipment and personnel are adequately given.

The proposal does have three significant deficiencies. First, the flood-pulse concept from the river-ecology literature is not mentioned. Even more important, a though the proposal recognizes that "the watershed has little likelihood of functioning the same way it did 200 years ago", there is no mention of what alternative land and water management practices will be considered. For instance, are there alternate operating policies for Libby Dam that might help to restore functioning of the flood plain? If there is no chance of restoring ecological function, what is the purpose of a five-year, $5M project? Furthermore, the proposal includes information about only one of the "key personnel" - for this kind of money, there must be more people working on the project? In any case, there is no evidence that a qualified hydrologist will be involved in the project. Given the magnitude of the funding requested, ISRP requests a revised proposal that addresses the above three deficiencies, and in addition provides a concise list of deliverables, an internal review process, and funding milestones. Vitae for key project personnel are essential.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

The project sponsor indicated that a $55,000 cost share has been provided by EPA. This project is a high priority need in this province. However, funding this effort should not put at jeopardy funding for construction and inundation losses. This project has been called for by the NWPPC and the Kootenai Subbasin Summary. The scope of the project needs to be expanded to include the full length of lower Kootenai River.

FY 02 Budget Review Comments: Province review group recommends adding $85,000 for each year to expand the project throughout the entire lower river. During the second year the planning phase could be reduced to $305,000.

REVIEW:
CBFWA FY02 Budget Review Comments

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

Province review group recommends adding $85,000 for each year to expand the project throughout the entire lower river. During the second year the planning phase could be reduced to $305,000.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 6, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The response was quite complete, although the comments regarding alternative operating policies for Libby Dam was marginal. The original proposal's lack of background in the flood-pulse concept was alleviated with a tour-de-force literature review. The response leaves little doubt that proposers have a coherent plan, and that the scientific personnel are capable of to accomplishing the project objectives. This should be an excellent project.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fundable

Date:
May 30, 2001

Comment:

- Agree with ISRP and CBFWA recommendation to fund and will meet BiOp requirements.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 19, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund partially

Date:
Mar 25, 2002

Comment:

Bonneville will fund the project as recommended but will explore the possibility of linking this project with proposal 24010 - Reconnection of Floodplain Slough Habitat to the Kootenai River to ensure that no redundancies exist between the projects.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Tied to 200200800. 04 increase due to additional 40 miles(2001 decision) (500 yr floodplain) - original estimate for this work was not sufficient.. Delayed in contracting resulted in delays in 2002 and 2003 - resulted in pushing work forward. Saved '03 $146,952 - so only need 226,008 new dollars. *Reschedule work to 2004. Land acquisitions would require discussion with managers, etc. Check for scope change.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$465,548	$465,548	$465,548

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website