FY 2000 proposal 198346700

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
198346700 Narrative	Narrative
198346700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam
Proposal ID	198346700
Organization	Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Brian Marotz / Greg Hoffman
Mailing address	490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email	4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short description	Research, design, execute and monitor watershed / habitat enhancement projects that mitigate for native fish losses caused by hydropower construction and operation.
Target species	Westslope cutthroat trout, Kootenai River white sturgeon, bull trout, burbot, inland rainbow trout.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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
1995	Developed a tiered (variable volume) approach for white sturgeon spawning flows balanced with reservoir IRCs and Snake River salmon biological opinion
1998	Rehabilitated approximately 200' of Pipe Creek frontage to prevent further loss of habitat for bull trout and rainbow trout.
1998	Developed on-site isolation facility for eventual brooding of inland rainbow trout.
1989	The LRMOD and preliminary IRCs (called Biological Rule Curves) were first published in 1989 (Fraley et al. 1989), then refined in 1996 (Marotz et al. 1996).
	A long-term database was established for monitoring populations of kokanee, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and burbot and other native fish species, as well as zooplankton and trophic relations.
1997	The effects of dam operation on benthic macroinvertebrates in the Kootenai River was assessed (Hauer et al. 1997) for comparison with conditions measured in the past (Perry and Huston 1983).
1996	A model was calibrated to estimate the entrainment of fish and zooplankton through Libby Dam as related to hydro-operations and use of the selective withdrawal structure.
1998	Chemically rehabilitated Carpenter Lake in northern Lincoln County to remove illegally introduced and stunted bluegill, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and northern pike populations.
1997	Chemically rehabilitated Bootjack, Topless, and Cibid Lakes in eastern Lincoln Country to remove illegally introduced pumpkinseed and yellow perch.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8806500	IDFG-Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations	White Sturgeon Recovery
8806400	KTOI – White Sturgeon Experimental Aquaculture	White Sturgeon Recovery
9404900	Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvement Study	Ecosystem Function
9401001	MFWP - Libby Reservoir Excessive Drawdown	Habitat Enhancement
8346500	MFWP - Libby and Hungry Horse Technical Analysis	Reservoir and River Modeling
9608702	MFWP - Focus Watershed Coordination	Watershed Coordination
8346500	Libby and Hungry Horse Modeling Technical Analysis - Libby Component
20028	Purchase Conservation Easement from Plum Creek Timber Company Fisher River.
9401000	MFWP- Libby Reservoir Excessive Drawdown
20517	Libby Fisheries Mitigation Program

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		$150,342
Fringe		$52,985
Supplies		$34,500
Operating		$7,000
Capital		$48,000
NEPA	Provided by in-house personnel	$0
Travel	Travel and Training	$28,000
Other	Overhead	$79,173
Subcontractor	Contracted services for stream rehabilitation work	$100,000
		$500,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$500,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$500,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USFS	Financial and physical support for a proposed westslope cutthroat trout and inland rainbow trout conservation plan in the Yaak River drainage ($25K in FY99; anticipate field support in FY2000 (in kind)).	$0	unknown
Kootenai River Network	Completion of a watershed bibiography for the Kootenai River Basin (in kind).	$0	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: We must implement many mitigation actions simultaneously so that as some individual projects are delayed by permitting, contracting or public input, others continue through completion. Our goal is to finalize several site-specific projects annually.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Fund in part

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund in part at FY1999 level. Subsequent funding contingent on a favorable comprehensive review by a visiting independent scientific committee.

Comments: This is a continuing project (ongoing for at least 10 years), the objectives of which are to "Restore, enhance, or protect … sustainable fish populations in the Kootenai Basin …". The main tasks include monitoring of the riverine environment for spawning and rearing habitat, documenting entrainment in the Libby Dam release structure, and various monitoring activities in the river and reservoir systems.

This is a well-written proposal that is comprehensive about both the past and future. The proposal quality ranked in the midrange of proposals reviewed. It shows high productivity and focus on problems. It is well related to FWP measures, biological opinions, ESA listings, the mitigation plan, Montana's plan, and species recovery plans. It relates the work to the umbrella proposal, 3 others under the umbrella, and 6 other projects. It shows good accomplishments. Extensive, excellent objectives reflect long-range plans. There is some in-kind cost sharing. It uses the umbrella effectively for background and rationale, and has a good narrative for relationships to other projects. The objectives narrative is good, but it could better explain what would be done specifically in FY2000. Methods and their rationales are excellent.

This could be a good candidate for multi-year funding. Because this is a long-term, ongoing project, projected to continue indefinitely, a more appropriate means of scientific review would be to assemble a visiting committee to review this project (and all projects under this umbrella) following which the proposers should be invited to submit a multi-year (3-5 year) proposal. Subsequent annual progress reports would be submitted, and handled on an administrative basis. The activities indicated in the proposal are no doubt meritorious, but without considering this proposal in the context of other projects under the umbrella, and perhaps other ongoing and proposed activities within the basin, a comprehensive evaluation is not possible. Funding would seem appropriate at the current level until the suggested comprehensive review can be conducted.

The primary successes of the project seem to have been in developing a variable volume approach for white sturgeon spawning flows and rehabilitating Pipe Creek for bull trout. The proposers appear to have a sophisticated approach for managing exotics by reclaiming fisheries for native fishes in lakes and ponds to reduce public demand for exotics.

Some specific comments that may aid the project:

Are kokanee and rainbow (redband) trout native to the Kootenai? These may not be native above Kootenai Falls (Behnke 1992).
Objective 4 is noteworthy. This is the model for restoration/conservation hatcheries. Are there native fishes that will be negatively affected by this project? Will fishes in Spring Creek negatively affect the redband trout?
Objective 6: Active treatment is a valid restoration strategy; but why was the decision made to perform active restoration? Was there an analysis performed which assessed the trade-offs between active and passive restoration? What are the potential side-effects of active restoration projects?
In objective 6, chemical treatment of lakes and ponds is not 100% effective. What level of efficacy will be acceptable to ensure that exotic competitors and predators will not remain a chronic problem needing repeated treatment?
What is the design of before and after studies that will ensure sufficient statistical power to determine the efficacy of the rehabilitation efforts?
What is the design for quantifying macrozoobenthos losses?
What effects are to be minimized in objective 7?
Will HSI curves for the varial zone of the Kootenai River be kept separate from the HIS curves from the Kootenai River proper? The ephemeral nature of the flow in the varial zone may change the behavior of selection patterns of fishes with respect to flow. Are there zones within the river that are going to be greatly impacted, and those less so?

There were some negative comments. This proposal did not address several shortcomings identified in the ISRP's FY99 report, Appendix A, page 71. The project seems to be an umbrella in itself, with many sub-projects. Some more attention to the theories of before-and-after sampling might be valuable in planning.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones listed. The milestones and loss statements are currently being reviewed by the NPPC.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Demonstrate the link between monitoring program and the long-term management benefits.

The proposal appears unfocused, includes too many disparate activities, and is heavy on monitoring while light on restoration.

$500,000 seems excessive for monitoring.

This appears to be an example of an agency maintaining a "program".

The staff and resources do not seem to be adequate to support the project (limited personnel cost).

Proposal exceeds the page limit.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund at level to maintain existing scope of investigation as in FY99, but do not expand scope of project until it is reviewed in the "rolling review." This was a good proposal that was generally supported by the ISRP. The ISRP's reservation was for increasing the scope of the project without a more thorough review. The response was adequate to support continuation. The regrouping of projects in the basin is probably good, but the response did not adequately alleviate the ISRP's confusion. A more detailed review of all projects and subprojects in the basin is needed for the ISRP to understand the history and flexible objectives of this on-going and fluid set of projects.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contract