FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199404900

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

A considerable change in the estimated budget for this project has occurred, accounted for by costs associated with O&M Objectives 1 and 2, and associated tasks (see Section 6 of 10, Part 1 of this proposal). Increase in estimated budget is due to mitigation costs of nutrient addition in the Kootenai River ecosystem (Kootenay Lake), as mandated by the 1995 and Draft 2000 USFWS Biological Opinions, due to lost system productivity caused by construction and operation of Libby Dam. Further increased budget estimate is due to mitigation costs of nutrient addition in Arrow Reservoir, as mandated by the 1995 and Draft 2000 USFWS Biological Opinions, to compensate for lost Arrow Reservoir productivity caused by the "Libby-Arrow swap" water management strategy. For a more detailed explanation and justification for increased budget estimate, see Part 2 of this proposal, text provided under Objectives 8 and 9.

Reason for change in scope

A considerable change in the estimated scope for this project has occurred, accounted for by addition of O&M Objectives 1 and 2, and associated tasks (see Section 6 of 10, Part 1 of this proposal). These objectives were included to satisfy recommendations in the 1995 and Draft 2000 USFWS Biological Opinions, NWPPC FWP language (Measures 10.6C and 2.2G.1), and IPC comments concerning FY2000 submission of these objectives (as Project 20009, In: NWPPC Document ISRP-2000-2A, pg. 191). For a more detailed explanation and justification for change in scope, see Part 2 of this proposal, text provided under Objectives 8 and 9.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The lack of focus and unclear direction perceived last year by the ISRP has largely been corrected. There is now an excellent scientific background section, with plenty of scientific references, some from this study. The information is well organized by topic, and the evidence for environmental problems is well summarized. The proposal ties this work to all relevant plans, including the FWP, the Subbasin Summary, the federal Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan for sturgeon and other species, CBFWA's multi-year implementation Plan, and the local River Network. Specific sections of these plans are cited. The proposal emphasizes the role of this project in overall, long-term, cooperative planning for improving the Kootenai River ecosystem from the Montana border to (and into) Kootenay Lake. With fertilization as a long-range objective (based on results of prior work), the project logically proposes use of mesocosms to first test fertilization on a small scale. Responsiveness of the lower trophic levels at the mesocosm level will foster confidence that whole-ecosystem fertilization could work to improve the system productivity.

The relationships to other projects funded by BPA are clearly presented. However, more detail about relevant non-BPA projects would have been informative. The project history is good, with good references, a good progression of logic, and a good sense of progressively integrating the accumulated knowledge of the river basin. There are well-written objectives keyed to major aspects of the work, coupled with good tasks for each objective. Methods are well described at an appropriate level of detail. There is a great deal of monitoring, with good rationale. There are no problems with facilities or personnel. Information transfer is especially good, with annual meetings.

From the evidence presented, there should be a good benefit to fish and wildlife from this project's gradual testing of the value of fertilization, and eventual implementation. The value of fertilization in Canada seems to have been proven, and the expense for fertilization justified scientifically. Whether this is the best administrative route for the purchases, is not the ISRP's responsibility.

However, the work and the ecosystem still present a confused and confusing situation. The proposal presumably seeks to assess limiting factors below Libby Dam but appears to discount all options other than nutrient limitation (isn't flow regime driven by power peaking?). Objectives are to evaluate primary and secondary productivity, etc. before and "potentially after" large-scale nutrient supplementation, without giving criteria for deciding whether to proceed with that supplementation. Yet >1/2 of budget is for fertilizer, suggesting that the decision regarding nutrient limitation as the key factor in the basin has already been made and data gathering may be window-dressing. Much of the fertilization would be done in Arrow Reservoir although that water body is only mentioned in 1-2 paragraphs and is actually outside the lower Kootenai River. The proposal states that the 1995 and draft 2000 NMFWS BiOp "mandates" the fertilization. Yet, for the reach at issue, the fertilization is not yet a proven key factor. It is just a management option for which two more years of in-depth work should provide the data to make the decision whether to implement.

Comment:

Comment:

The lack of focus and unclear direction perceived last year by the ISRP has largely been corrected. There is now an excellent scientific background section, with plenty of scientific references, some from this study. The information is well organized by topic, and the evidence for environmental problems is well summarized. The proposal ties this work to all relevant plans, including the FWP, the Subbasin Summary, the federal Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan for sturgeon and other species, CBFWA's multi-year implementation Plan, and the local River Network. Specific sections of these plans are cited. The proposal emphasizes the role of this project in overall, long-term, cooperative planning for improving the Kootenai River ecosystem from the Montana border to (and into) Kootenay Lake. With fertilization as a long-range objective (based on results of prior work), the project logically proposes use of mesocosms to first test fertilization on a small scale. Responsiveness of the lower trophic levels at the mesocosm level will foster confidence that whole-ecosystem fertilization could work to improve the system productivity.

The relationships to other projects funded by BPA are clearly presented. However, more detail about relevant non-BPA projects would have been informative. The project history is good, with good references, a good progression of logic, and a good sense of progressively integrating the accumulated knowledge of the river basin. There are well-written objectives keyed to major aspects of the work, coupled with good tasks for each objective. Methods are well described at an appropriate level of detail. There is a great deal of monitoring, with good rationale. There are no problems with facilities or personnel. Information transfer is especially good, with annual meetings.

From the evidence presented, there should be a good benefit to fish and wildlife from this project's gradual testing of the value of fertilization, and eventual implementation. The value of fertilization in Canada seems to have been proven, and the expense for fertilization justified scientifically. Whether this is the best administrative route for the purchases, is not the ISRP's responsibility.

However, the work and the ecosystem still present a confused and confusing situation. The proposal presumably seeks to assess limiting factors below Libby Dam but appears to discount all options other than nutrient limitation (isn't flow regime driven by power peaking?). Objectives are to evaluate primary and secondary productivity, etc. before and "potentially after" large-scale nutrient supplementation, without giving criteria for deciding whether to proceed with that supplementation. Yet >1/2 of budget is for fertilizer, suggesting that the decision regarding nutrient limitation as the key factor in the basin has already been made and data gathering may be window-dressing. Much of the fertilization would be done in Arrow Reservoir although that water body is only mentioned in 1-2 paragraphs and is actually outside the lower Kootenai River. The proposal states that the 1995 and draft 2000 NMFWS BiOp "mandates" the fertilization. Yet, for the reach at issue, the fertilization is not yet a proven key factor. It is just a management option for which two more years of in-depth work should provide the data to make the decision whether to implement.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website