FY 2000 proposal 20009
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Fertilization of Kootenay Lake and Arrow Reservoir |
| Proposal ID | 20009 |
| Organization | B.C. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jay Hammond |
| Mailing address | #401 - 333 Victoria Street Nelson, BC V1L 4K3 |
| Phone / email | 2503546343 / jhammond@nelson.env.gov.bc.ca |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
| Short description | Fertilize Kootenay Lake and Arrow Reservoir to mitigate impacts of providing
flow augmentation for lower river salmon migration. |
| Target species | Kokanee, rainbow trout, bull trout, white sturgeon, burbot and a wide range of other species common to the Kootenay/Columbia watershed. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
fertilizer costs |
$175,000 |
| $175,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $175,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $175,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program |
Arrow Reservoir fertilization |
$342,000 |
unknown |
| Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program |
Kootenay Lake fertilization |
$211,000 |
unknown |
| Columbia Power Corporation |
Arrow Reservoir fertilization |
$114,000 |
unknown |
| MELP |
Arrow and Kootenay fertilization (not including in-kind support) |
$13,000 |
unknown |
| BPA |
Arrow and Kootenay fertilization |
$175,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: If approval of funding does not occur before October, 1999, fertilizer purchases cannot be made in time for 1999 applications. Thus, the earliest use of this material would occur in the spring of 2000.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The proposal is technically inadequate and benefits to fish and wildlife are not justified. If considered a requirement of the flow augmentation swap, then funding for fertilizer purchase should be evaluated in another forum.
Comments:
This proposal to buy an unspecified quantity of fertilizer equivalent to the change in flows from Canadian reservoirs required by recent flow augmentation agreements. This proposal is intended to augment their Canadian reservoir fertilization program and to offset losses in production. Based on their experience, it will take 5 years to determine the success of the program. It is questionable that the issue deserves to be considered as a separate proposal, and, in any event, objectives are not clearly defined.
The Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks has a considerable track record in investigating the impacts of Libby and Duncan Dams acting as nutrient traps and the consequent reduction of system productivity. They began documenting the problem and its history in 1990 and then set out experimental addition of nutrients in 1992. The results were very positive, increasing kokanee runs seven-fold. New requirements to increase summer flushing flows downstream for juvenile salmon transport will flush nutrients downstream (Note that proposal 9404900 does not consider this.), thereby reducing productivity above the dams, but increasing productivity below. The sponsors suspect that nutrient loading may be less in the future due to retention time and turnover rate of water in the system. They did not present their model of nutrient budgets for these systems. That this will be a recurring expense as long as the dams persist is unstated (note this is for Upper Arrow Lake basin only).
Technical aspects of the work do not appear to be justified. Possible unwanted side effects of the proposed activities may not have been considered and accounted for; they are not covered in the proposal. Also, the proposal objectives section does not relate how the proposed fertilizer purchase might result in fisheries benefits. Further, there is no justification for the $175,000.00 budget request. There is only a statement that "the exact amount of fertilizer required…is unclear at this time." This proposal appears premature and not well thought out.
The review group concluded that this purchase should not require a proposal in this form. Rather, BPA should just be asked to contribute to the fertilizer purchase. The lake fertilization project is underway and funded elsewhere. BPA is simply being asked to contribute to fertilizer purchase based on a swap of flow augmentation between Arrow and Libby Dams. The proposal itself needs improvement, partly because it is really not a full project proposal. If needed in the form of a project proposal, this should be in a specific proposal that justifies benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 3, and the objectives are poorly defined. This needs references in the narrative part of the proposal to show basis for benefits. This is an incomplete proposal, and it is poorly written.
Programmatic Criteria: no-It goes beyond the intent of the NPPC Resident Fish Measure because of Arrow Lake.
Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones listed.
General Comments:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];