FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199500400

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam
Proposal ID199500400
OrganizationMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrian Marotz / Greg Hoffman
Mailing address490 North Meridian Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net; ghoffman@libby.org
Manager authorizing this projectBrian Marotz
Review cycleMountain Columbia
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionImplemention of watershed-based habitat enhancement and fish recovery actions to mitigate the losses caused by hydropower in the Kootenai subbasin. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks collaborates with the Tribes of Montana and Idaho, IDFG and B. C., Canada.
Target speciesBull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, Kootenai River white sturgeon, burbot
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.45 -115.73 Kootenai River
48.84 -114.83 Grave Creek
48.98 -114.74 Weasel Creek
48.55 -115.54 Pipe Creek
48.34 -115.96 Keeler Creek
48.53 -115.88 O'Brien Creek
48.54 -115.66 Quartz Creek
48.18 -115.58 Bear Creek
48.96 -115.28 Young Creek
48.76 -115.45 Big Creek
48.9 -114.96 Sinclair Creek
48.85 -114.92 Therriault Creek
48.38 -115.86 Lake Creek
48.65 -114.91 Fortine Creek
48.85 -114.99 Tobacco River
48.53 -115.37 Barron Creek
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1989 The LRMOD and preliminary IRC's (called Biological Rule Curves) were first published in 1989 (Fraley et al. 1989), then refined in 1996 (Marotz et al. 1996 and 1999).
1995 Developed a tiered (variable volume) approach for white sturgeon spawning flows balanced with reservoir IRC's and Snake River salmon biological opinion.
1996 A model was calibrated to estimate the entrainment of fish and zooplankton through Libby Dam as related to hydropower operations and use of the selective withdrawal structure.
1997 The effects of dam operation on benthic macroinvertebrates were assessed (Hauer et al. 1997) for comparison with conditions measured in the past (Perry and Huston 1983).
1997 Chemically rehabilitated Bootjack, Topless and Cibid Lakes in eastern Lincoln County to remove illegally introduced pumpkinseeds and yellow perch and reestablish rainbow trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Closed basin lakes.
1998 Rehabilitated 200' of Pipe Creek frontage to prevent further loss of habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Pipe Creek is a primary spawning tributary to the Kootenai River.
1998 Developed an isolation facility for the conservation of redband rainbow trout at the Libby Field Station. Existing ponds were restored and the inlet stream was enhanced for natural outdoor rearing (1998 through 1999). Natural reproduction may be possible.
1999 Chemically rehabilitated Carpenter Lake to remove illegally introduced pike, largemouth bass and bluegills and reestablish westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout. Natural reproduction is not expected in this closed basin lake.
1999 Rehabilitated ~400' of Sinclair Creek to reduce erosion, stabilize highway crossing, and install fisheries habitat for westslope cutthroat trout. Sinclair Creek is a tributary to Libby Reservoir.
2000 Completed fish screening (bull trout) project on Grave Creek diversion channel in cooperation with USFS, USFWS and MFWP's Future Fisheries Program. Grave Creek is a primary native trout spawning tributary to Libby Reservoir.
2000 Stabilized ~1,000' of Libby Creek (100' tall cut bank) to eliminate a major sediment point source and to improve migration corridor for bull trout and instream habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and juvenile bull trout. A tributary to Kootenai River.
2000 Completed additional work on Sinclair Creek to stabilize a bank slough for westslope cutthroat habitat improvement. Sinclair Creek is now accessable to adfluvial spawners from Libby Reservoir.
2000 Major contributor (financial and in-kind services) towards completion of Parmenter Creek re-channelization/rehabilitation work (Project Impact). Parmenter has the potential to provide additional spawning and rearing habitat for Kootenai River fish.
2000 Major contributor towards completion of new ditch diversion / fish screen / channel stabilization project on Porcupine Creek. Project will benefit redband in this Yaak River tributary.
2000 Completed Instream Flow Incremental Methodology report and model for use in guiding operational strategies for Libby Dam to better suit fisheries habitat needs. Provided evidence and recommendations for improved river operations.
2000 Completed stream stabilization and re-channelization project at the mouth of O'Brien Creek to mitigate for delta formation and resulting stream instability, and to ensure bull trout passage in the future.
2000 Completed stream stabilization and water diversion project in cooperation with the city of Troy on O'Brien Creek to ensure bull trout passage in the future.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199608702 MFWP- Focus Watershed Native Species Recovery
198806500 IDFG-Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations White Sturgeon Revovery
198806400 KTI - White Sturgeon Experimental Aquaculture White Sturgeon Recovery
19940490 Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvement Study Ecosystem Function
2000004 Monitor and Protect bull trout for Koocanusa Reservoir Bull Trout Recovery
199101903 Hungry Horse Mitigation Similar project in the Flathead Watershed

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Use the completed Libby Mitigation Plan document (MFWP, CSKT and KTOI 1998) to design watershed-based habitat protection and enhancement projects in identified bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout and inland redband trout streams. a. Contact landowners to describe goals and encourage cooperation in habitat enhancement efforts. Work cooperatively with Focus Watershed Coordination program, local watershed councils, related resource groups and government entities. ongoing for duration of project $15,000
b. Conduct stream inventories and evaluate feasibility of restoring priority streams to quality native trout habitat. ongoing for duration of project $15,000
c. Select and prioritize project sites for habitat restoration, livestock fencing and watering stations, migrant passage improvement, point source sediment abatement, streambank stabilization, and revegetation of riparian areas. ongoing for duration of project $10,000
d. Formalize landowner and agency agreements to protect investments. Develop cost-share programs with USFS, NRCS, Montana DNRC, Libby Area Conservation District, ACOE, Kootenai River Network, and other agencies and organizations. ongoing for duration of project $10,000
e. Develop site-specific project designs, maps, materials lists and contracts, budgets and timelines, obtain 124, 3A, 404 and chemical treatment permits for completion of projects listed in the plan. . ongoing for duration of project $120,000 Yes
f. Initiate purchasing, contracts and implement plans at highest priority sites. ongoing for duration of project $10,000
g. Complete pre-project monitoring and NEPA/MEPA documentation processes prior to any habitat manipulation. ongoing for duration of project $10,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$195,000$200,000$205,000$210,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Use the completed Libby Mitigation Plan document (MFWP, CSKT and KTOI 1998) to complete habitat rehabilitation projects to enhance native species the Kootenai Basin. a. Complete mitigation projects in the Kootenai Watershed to compensate for fisheries losses caused by the construction and operation of Libby Dam. ongoing for duration of project $160,000 Yes
2. Develop a genetic conservation reserve of native interior redband trout to be used as the initial source of eggs for restoration, using the established state hatchery program. a. After appropriate disease and genetic testing, capture interior redband trout from Basin Creek, Porcupine Creek and Callahan Creek and transport to the Libby Field Station isolation habitat. 2 $5,000
3. Establish permanent protection of stream corridors where habitat protection and enhancement investments have been made by acquiring easements and purchasing riparian zones in target recovery areas. a. In cooperation with the Kootenai Focus Watershed Coordination program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “Partners for Wildlife” program, identify and develop easements and land purchase opportunities for riparian zones in the Kootenai Subbasin. ongoing for duration of project $10,000
4. Develop a stockpile of native streambank stabilization material (rootwads, boulders, revegetation material) for use in stream habitat and conservation projects. a Locate sources of useful dimensioned rootwads, logs, and rocks; negotiate purchase. Collect and transport materials. ongoing for duration of project $25,000 Yes
See "FISHERIES MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF LIBBY DAM" for complete listing of proposed projects (attached). $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
2. Develop a genetic conservation reserve of native interior redband trout to be used as the initial source of eggs for the established state hatchery program. 2002 2003 $5,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$225,000$250,000$275,000$300,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Maintain Libby Field Station redband experimental isolation habitat and associated labratory equipment. a. Purchase equipment needed to operate Libby Field Station. ongoing for duration of project. $40,000
b. Provide for repair of existing equipment. ongoing for duration of project. $20,000
c. Provide for construction and maintenance of redband isolation habitat and laboratory. ongoing for duration of project. $40,000
2. Monitor the effectiveness of site-specific mitigation projects using applied research. a. Purchase equipment as needed. Varying $40,000
3. Maintain and repair instream structures and associated rehabilitated property. a. Repair bank and structure failures. ongoing for duration of project. $40,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$180,000$185,000$190,000$200,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Assess the metapopulation strength of populations of native bull trout in the Kootenai River above and below Libby Dam, including transboundary populations (Montana and Canada). a. Conduct redd surveys in Grave, Weasel, Pipe, Keeler, O'Brien, Quartz and Bear Creeks. ongoing for duration of project $5,500
2. Monitor permanent stream form and sediment monitoring stations in the Wigwam River (BC) and in Grave Creek (MT). a. Cooperate with BCMOE to identify spawning areas, complete McNeil core sampling, estimate juvenile survival, identify juvenile rearing areas, and complete Rosgen-type habitat inventories. ongoing for duration of project $6,200 Yes
3. Increase knowledge of native westslope cutthroat trout populations and other trout species in Libby Reservoir and its tributaries. a. Determine strength of adfluvial spawning runs in Young, Big, Sinclair, Therriault, Lake and Fortine Creeks and the Tobacco River using migrant traps. ongoing for duration of project $12,500
4. Continue to monitor the effectiveness of using remote site incubators (RSI) as a means of increasing recruitment of age-2 or greater westslope cutthroat trout into tributary populations. a. Operate the permanent weir on Young Creek to capture upstream migrant adult trout and downstream migrant juvenile trout to monitor the spawning population and strength of emigration. 5 $6,500
b. Conduct electrofishing population estimates in historically sampled reaches to monitor the effects of RSI’s . ongoing for duration of research project $6,500
c. Deploy RSI’s in Barron Creek in each of the next 5 years as part of a study to determine effectiveness of westslope cutthroat trout at displacing non-native eastern brook trout. 7 $6,000
5. Continue to evaluate thermal otolith marking methods for marking westslope cutthroat fry delivered from hatcheries to enable more effective evaluation of RSI program. a. Prepare and interpret otolith collected from migrating WCT of known origin bearing differing cold-marked otolith. 6 $5,500
6. Use IFIM to aid in establishing biologically sound river operations. Link IFIM and LRMOD to help evaluate operational tradeoffs between the reservoir and the river. Use VARQ/IRC models to assess dam operations and effects on the river environment. a. Calibrate completed PHABSIM (RHABSIM) model; develop interface between existing reservoir model (LRMOD) and completed riverine model (RHABSIM). 1 $18,000 Yes
b. Quantify amount of available habitat for target species in Kootenai River from Libby Dam to Kootenay Lake under various operational strategies. 1 $7,500 Yes
c. Determine microhabitat selection of Kootenai River bull trout and juvenile white sturgeon and incorporate HSI data into IFIM model. 2 $10,000 Yes
7. Define river operations required to mitigate for losses of Kootenai River macrozoobenthos attributed to river regulation. a. Determine varial zone area of the Kootenai River affected by ramping operations. 1 $7,500
b. Quantify seasonal losses of macrozoobenthos in the Kootenai River during ramping periods. 1 $12,500
c. Establish seasonal operational guidelines to minimize effects. ongoing for duration of project $9,000
8. Continue to monitor biological and hydrological effects of stream and lake rehabilitation. a. Monitor zooplankton recolonization and fisheries growth in chemically treated lakes. Monitor hydrological function and aquatic biota in rehabilitated streams. ongoing for duration of project $15,000 Yes
9. Quantify and document life cycle requirements and devise recovery actions for burbot in the Kootenai basin. a. Enumerate burbot in SCUBA transects year around in the Libby Dam stilling basin. ongoing for duration of project $8,000 Yes
b. Determine distribution, timing of spawning, and habitat use of all life stages of burbot in the Kootenai River from Libby Dam to the Idaho border. ongoing for duration of project $2,000
10. Determine flows best suited for successful white sturgeon spawning and rearing. a. Incorporate juvenile white sturgeon habitat requirements (U of Idaho graduate study funded by FWP) into IFIM model to help determine flow regimes beneficial for white sturgeon. 1 $7,500
b. Continue participation in the white sturgeon recovery team. ongoing for duration of project / white sturgeon recovery $3,000
11. Continue efforts investigating limiting factors and primarily recruitment of salmonid populations in the lower Kootenai River (Kootenai Falls to Idaho border). Address and implement actions that will enhance this fishery. a. Work with Kootenai River Ecosystem Assessment Committee (IDFG, KTOI, BCMOE and others) to assess productivity status and needs in the Kootenai River. 3-6 $12,800
12. Monitor bull trout movement and habitat use of mainstem Kootenai River and tributaries. a. Collect adult bull trout in the Kootenai River via electrofishing and from Bear Creek via migrant trapping; Surgically implant radio tags. ongoing for duration of project / bull trout recovery $7,500
b. Track fish from boats and planes on a bi-weekly basis annually, and weekly during spawning season. ongoing for duration of project / bull trout recovery $32,000 Yes
13. Ascertain the feasibility of managing fish entrainment using flash technology. a. Invite personnel from IDFG and Flash Technology to test a portable array of strobe lights and assess fish response using hydroacoustics. 1 $10,000 Yes
14. Document entrainment of fish through Libby Dam during flow events greater than 20,000 cfs. a. Monitor entrainment of fish through Libby Dam; measure draft tube velocities and determine relationships to discharge and reservoir elevation; incorporate >20 kcfs entrainment data into the existing entrainment model (Skaar et al. 1996).. Until data from these flow events are successfully collected $8,500
b. Estimate vertical fish densities in the forebay using hydroacoustic technology and verification equipment. ongoing for duration of Libby Dam $3,000
15. Monitor zooplankton and gamefish populations in Koocanusa Reservoir. Monitor zooplankton and gamefish populations in Libby Reservoir. a. Monitor seasonal and annual changes in fish abundance in near shore zones with seasonal gillnetting. ongoing for duration of project $3,000
b. Conduct annual estimates of population numbers of each age class of kokanee (hydroacoustics) with FWP Regional Fisheries Program. ongoing for duration of project $3,000
c. Monitor zooplankton populations in the reservoir. ongoing for duration of project $6,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Those objectives with "duration of project" timeframe are not included in this estimate $0
1. Assess the metapopulation strength of populations of native bull trout in the Kootenai River above and below Libby Dam, including transboundary populations (Montana and Canada). 1998 2010 $250,000
4. Continue to monitor the effectiveness of using remote site incubators (RSI) as a means of increasing recruitment of age-2 or greater westslope cutthroat trout into tributary populations. 1998 2007 $60,000
5. Continue to evaluate thermal otolith marking methods for marking westslope cutthroat fry delivered from hatcheries to enable more effective evaluation of RSI program. 1999 2006 $30,000
6. Use IFIM to aid in establishing biologically sound river operations. Link IFIM and LRMOD to help evaluate operational tradeoffs between the reservoir and the river. Use VARQ/IRC models to assess dam operations and effects on the river environment. 2000 2003 $55,000
11. Continue efforts investigating limiting factors and primarily recruitment of salmonid populations in the lower Kootenai River (Kootenai Falls to Idaho border). Address and implement actions that will enhance this fishery. 2000 2010 $63,000
13. Ascertain the feasibility of managing fish entrainment using flash technology. If feasible, begin experimental mitigation of turbine entrainment, arrange cost-share for retrofiit of Libby Dam. 2002 2003 $25,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$230,000$235,000$240,000$245,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 9.60 $234,258
Fringe $64,144
Supplies $88,500
Travel $35,000
Indirect $28,098
Capital $0
NEPA In-house $0
PIT tags $0
Subcontractor Stream rehabilitation design, consultation, and construction; River and reservoir modeling. $355,000
$805,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$805,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$805,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$795,000
% change from forecast1.3%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Dam operation changes at Libby Dam that respond to terms and conditions in the USFWS white sturgeon/bull trout BiOp and NMFS salmon/steelhead BiOp necessitate additional monitoring of fish entrainment and gas satiration. We added a modest increase to assess the feasibility of managing fish entrainment through the dam turbines. We also anticipate additional research, monitoring and mitigation needs (due to the BiOps) that could not be itemized at the time of this writing.

Reason for change in scope

No change in scope, current work was outlined in the Libby Mitigation Plan and previous proposals.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Kootenai River Network Financial assistance for completion of stream rehabilitation projects, as well as technical advisory role. Other contributors include USFS, USFWS, Libby Area Conservancy District, Kootenai Trout Anglers, and various watershed work groups. $250,000 cash
Kootenai River Network Technical oversight for KRN projects. $0 in-kind
US Fish and Wildlife Service Financial assistance for development of conservation easements in the Kootenai River watershed $7,500 cash
US Army Corps of Engineers Data and design for stream rehabilitation work on Libby Creek $30,000 cash
US Army Corps of Engineers Conceptual design for Libby Creek stream rehabilitation project. $20,000 cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Feb 9, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund in present form; a response review is needed. A new proposal is needed for this work. Except for an excellent and well-organized scientific background section, this proposal is fragmented. The theme seemed to be to do a bit of everything imaginable in the Montana section of the basin. However, this impression may have been given because of the style of quoting from the Subbasin Summary followed by an outline of objectives that mixed results with plans. The proposal is much poorer quality than the one reviewed for this project last year.

The scientific background was excellent. It was clearly organized by species and topic. There were good references to the scientific literature. The section integrated the upper basin issues with the entire watershed. The narrative did not, however, relate the proposed work to the Subbasin Summary. Quotation of the Summary in the objectives section did not accomplish the desired integrative explanation. There were few other projects mentioned in the narrative. Related projects listed in Part 1 were not discussed in the narrative. The section on project history gave little information on results of prior work. The objectives sections in both parts gave the impression of too many small topics. Their presentation was confusing. Few methods were given, and not well matched to the objectives and tasks. Monitoring and evaluation were not clearly identified. Facilities, etc. were reasonable. Information transfer seemed largely lacking. The benefit to wildlife is unclear because of the plethora of small projects.

This is a weak proposal for over $4M for five years. This is a collection of ongoing research, "fix-it," exploration, social action, and construction projects each of which deserves careful scrutiny to assess whether or not it is increasing fish abundance. The abstract claims that the objective is to mitigate for Libby Dam via habitat enhancement, fish passage improvements, etc., and through investigation of alternate upstream reservoir operating procedures. Just how any of that would be done is missing from the proposal. There is no work plan, no indication of what's been accomplished to date and how proposed actions (which aren't specified) would relate to past work. What would be done with almost $1M per year is not clear. Most of the proposal is a statement of problems resulting from dam construction, with nothing on what will be done, and why it might be effective. Furthermore, the project team appears to have no hydrologic or water management expertise, which will be essential if anything realistic is to be accomplished relative to investigation of reservoir operations.

The review team had many specific questions about the work. Listed below are some of them, which may be helpful in recasting the proposal.

  1. Page 13, Objective 3. Have the disruptive conditions that led to poor riffle, run, and pool frequencies been stopped so that project efforts will be long-term?
  2. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 1. Shouldn't this be an experiment to determine what structure and dynamics would favor native species assemblages?
  3. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 2. This statement says that natural densities will be increased implying that a population already exists, but its density will be increased. Why wouldn't natural spawn take advantage of the available food and space?
  4. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 3. What are methods for selective removal of non-natives?
  5. Page 14, Objective 1, Bullet 4. What is revegetation here? Is planting necessary?
  6. Page 15, Objective 6. Don't these deltas form during each flood event making need for a continuing project? If so, what rotation timing is needed to keep all streams open?
  7. Page 15, Objective 15. What is the hypothesis to be tested here?
  8. Page 15, Objective 1. Have land uses and flow restrictions been changed to ensure maintenance of any restoration?
  9. Page 15, Objective 2. When actions such as those proposed are taken, what are the assessment criteria? Are the same criteria applied to any location along the channel's course? Are the criteria designed to protect the diversity of substrate composition that might be found in a comparable wilderness stream?
  10. Page 16, Objective 3. Same as previous question. What is the natural diversity in stream temperatures?
  11. Page 16, Objective 1. Does removal method include use of poison? If so, what precautions are taken to protect non-target organisms such as amphibians?
  12. Page 16, Work Objectives and Tasks. How do the elements that follow here fit with the former?
  13. Page 17, items b, c and f. These elements suggest that a system for assigning priorities to streams. Do these choices reflect what is needed to protect and enhance the structure of resident fish populations needed to maximize their viability in the long-term?
  14. Page 18, first paragraph. Isn't habitat limiting for adult fish in any stream? What can be done if food is the limiting factor?
  15. Page 20, item 9. Implication here is that the structure of the population(s) is known. Is that true?
  16. Page 20, Item 11a. Reason?
  17. Page 21, Item 12c. How will this experiment be designed and the results evaluated?
  18. Page 21, statement after 12c. What is success?
  19. Page 22, Item 15. Is this possible given the variation seen in comparable studies elsewhere?

Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 6, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, the response (a revised proposal) adequately addressed many of the ISRP's specific concerns. However, this project is an amalgam of many discrete projects, and it is difficult to evaluate how well the work is progressing toward attaining clearly stated project goals. Even the revised proposal does not provide adequate biologically measurable objectives or reporting of past results in terms of measurable benefits to fish. In this respect, it remains marginal in quality compared to other proposals in the Province. The ISRP expects that the goals and biologically measurable results will be clarified in the 3 years of work to be funded and that a subsequent proposal will clearly articulate goals and accomplishments.

The response leads one to conclude that past and proposed funding goes to support a habitat program directed to identifying situations that, in the opinion of project personnel, are potentially detrimental to fish growth and survival. Actions are then taken to alter the situation directly, or indirectly by enlisting the cooperation of local landowners. It does not appear that project personnel perceive this as a project or series of projects with clear assessment of successes and failures expected in a specified time. All projects are successful and the number of such projects completed determines program success. Reviewers are expected, therefore, to take the word, belief, or judgment of project personnel that, given the requested resources, they will find and conduct actions that benefit fish; actions that will be consistent with overall subbasin and basin goals, and in the best interest of ratepayers. This approach makes definition of proposed work and accountability for work accomplished very difficult.

Some specific concerns remain that may be helpful for the project team. (1) It appears that the project may rely too heavily on hard fixes rather than passive restoration methods. (2) The proposers have attempted to develop a new, informative format based on assembly of many different sub-projects and specific references to the Subbasin Summary. This format works much better than the previous one. (3) The text on information transfer still seems weak, and perhaps justifies more specific attention to outreach, from scientific papers to direct communication. Much of this is likely being done, some through Project 199608720 (which should be made clearer). It will do the project and BPA much good to tell others about the successes and to tie the information to this specific project.


Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 30, 2001

Comment:

- This project does not presently meet ESA BiOp requirements, but will require funding under the implementation plan. It is anticipated that this project will be fully developed by December 2001. The ISRP was correct in identifying this as an amalgam of many discrete projects. Past performance has been acceptable on individual projects, but as with the Hungry Horse Mitigation project 199101903, it is difficult to measure the overall success of the project without a clear linkage between individual projects and overall mitigation goals and objective. This project has been operating under the draft Libby mitigation plan provided to the Council in 1996. The Council should act to adopt this mitigation plan and require the project sponsor to clarify its goals and objective and timeframes for mitigation success. We also do not understand the current objective for "information transfer". The type of peer review, such as a scientific journal or other publication needs to be clearly stated.

LIBBY DAM 6TH UNIT - The FWS biological opinion requests that Libby Dam capacity should be increased by 10 kcfs. A 2001 test of the spillway to determine how much water could be delivered through spill while staying within the 110% Total Dissolved Gas Standard has been delayed for one year due to low water conditions. This project requires funding under the implementation plan and will be fully developed by December 200.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 19, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 25, 2002

Comment:

Bonneville will fund... as recommended to meet requirements of the USFWS's BiOp as described in the Action Agencies 2002 Annual Implementation Plan.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

The FY 2004 budget reflects the ongoing project, plus the final year of the Kootenai IFIM model update. The 2005 budget includes expenses for major scheduled habitat improvement projects on Grave, Libby and Pipe Creeks. On track.
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:
$840,000 $840,000 $840,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website