BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Monitoring of Integrated Rule Curve Implementation Hungry Horse/Libby (formerly Biological Rule Curves)

BPA project number   9501200

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
MDFWP

Sponsor type   MT-State/Local Agency

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameBrian Marotz
 Mailing addressMontana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
490 N. Meridian Road
Kalispell, MT 5990
 Phone406/751-4546

BPA technical contact   Ron Morinaka, EWP 503/230-5365

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   10.3B.3

Short description
Field monitoring of biological responses to the Integrated Rule Curves after implementation.

Project start year   1995    End year   2005

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
Projects 8446500 Technical analysis Libby and Hungry Horse: model refinement and expanded utility. Projects 8346700 Libby mitigation and 9101903 Hungry Horse mitigation: provide empirical data for model construction and IRC development.

Project history
Monitoring/verification of IRCs was planned prior to implementation. Operating agencies and NPPC desire an assessment of their effectiveness. The NPPC adopted the IRCs in 1994.

Biological results achieved
None until IRCs are implemented.

Annual reports and technical papers
IRC Report. 1996. No monitoring can begin until IRCs are implemented.

Management implications
Reservoirs will be operated to conform with IRCs. The tiered approach for experiment white sturgeon spawning/rearing flows was unanimously supported by the White Sturgeon Recovery Team.

Specific measureable objectives
To provide regional equity for Columbia River operations (balancing power, flood control, etc. with resident and anadromous fish. In the Kootenai subbasin, IRCs provide a spring freshet of varying shape and magnitude to assess the response of spawning white sturgeon (tiered flow approach). This freshet also resorts gravels and improves conditions for insect prey, then moves downstream aiding Columbia River salmon smolts. The sturgeon release is balanced with reservoir operation to reduce deep drafts and refill failure, which in turn improves ecological conditions in the reservoir. The above factors are measureable using hydrology, fluvial processes, insect density measurements (two previous reports), IFIM and CRiSP, system modeling and trophic level sampling.

Testable hypothesis
Implementation of IRCs will provide measurable benefits to fish in the Columbia River.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
That the IRCs will be implemented. The NMFS Biological Opinion must be modified to achieve balance between resident and anadromous fish from a Columbia Basin-wide perspective.

Methods
Methods will be developed in response to regional needs after IRCs are implemented.

Brief schedule of activities
Report due to NPPC in 2005.

Biological need
Verification of IRCs is warranted because of costs associated with IRC implementation. NOTE: IRCs are less expensive than the operation dictated by the NMFS Biological Opinion.

Critical uncertainties
Is science going to drive Columbia River operations or are emotions and politics going to have the upper hand?

Summary of expected outcome
Verification of IRCs after implementation.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
NMFS Biological Opinion must consider resident fish needs while implementing salmon recovery. Monitoring will be joint conducted by MFWP and CSKT. Libby IRCs and sturgeon tiered flows will likely be evaluated by KTOI, IDFG, White Sturgeon Recovery Team or Kootenai Basin Steering Committee.

Risks
The true risk would occur if system operations are not verified in terms of biological losses and benefits.

Monitoring activity
This is a monitoring project. Methods will be designed relative to system-wide needs after the IRCs are implemented.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 0
1998: 0
1999: 0
2000: 0
2001: 0

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Resident Fish

Recommendation    Tier 1 - fund

Recommended funding level   $0