FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200000400: Monitor, Protect, and Rehabilitation of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat in the Upper Kootenay River Subbasin

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
December 13, 2005 Finalized Herb Tepper

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200000400
Proposal Name: Monitor, Protect, and Rehabilitation of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat in the Upper Kootenay River Subbasin
BPA Project Manager: Virgil Watts III
Agency, Institution or Organization: Ministry of Environment
Short Description: Protect Upper Kootenay River bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout from inappropriate reservoir operating regimes and other resource practises by monitoring bull trout spawner returns, their habitat and then rehabilitating their habitat where required.
Information Transfer: The monitoring data collected by this project will be used to protect bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout and their habitat, through the use of regulation changes where required. All information/data/reports generated from this project will be uploaded on the BPA and MOE web sites so that they can be accessed by the public.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Herb Tepper Ministry of Environment 205 Industrial Rd. G.
Cranbrook, BC V1C 7G5
Ph: (250) 489-8552
Fax: (250) 489-8506
Email: Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Herb Tepper Ministry of Environment 205 Industrial Rd. G.
Cranbrook, BC V1C 7G5
Ph: (250) 489-8552
Fax: (250) 489-8506
Email: Herb.Tepper@gov.bc.ca
Contract Manager
Form Submitter
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Columbia ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Kootenai ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Wigwam River Upper Kootenay Watershed (Canada), focusing on the Wigwam, St Mary, Sookumchuck, and White Rivers B.C., Canada, Kootenai Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Bull Trout
Westslope Cutthroat

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White River.
2004 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White & Skookumchuck Rivers.
2003 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the White & Skookumchuck Rivers.
2002 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the Wigwam & Skookumchuck Rivers.
2001 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Monitored BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat in the Wigwam River.
2000 Assessed Bull Trout (BT) metapopulation strength in the Kootenay River above Libby Dam (i.e. Redd counts, Fence/Trap, Tracked BT movement). Established permanent monitoring stations in the Wigwam River to monitor BT fry/juvenile densities and habitat.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199500400 Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam Also assessed the metapopulation strength of bull trout in the Kootenay River (in the USA) above Libby Dam. Also established permanent stream-form and bull trout sediment monitoring stations in Grave Creek.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Improve Channel Stability Improve channel stability to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated channel stability scores of reference and Class 1 streams. Kootenai Increase or improve instream habitat by restoring recruitment of large woody debris, pool development, or other appropriate components in streams where investigation indicates such actions are likely to benefit native fish. 32
Improve Habitat Diversity Improve habitat diversity to a level equivalent to the QHA-generated habitat diversity scores of reference streams. Kootenai Increase or improve instream habitat by restoring recruitment of large woody debris, pool development, or other appropriate components in streams where investigation indicates such actions are likely to benefit native fish. 35
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability Achieve an overall bull trout population trend in the Kootenai River Recovery Unit that is accepted, under contemporary standards of the time, to be stable or increasing, based on at least 10 years of monitoring data. Kootenai Emphasis should be placed on continuing to track bull trout population trends through surveys of catch and harvest in Kootenay Lake as well as other monitoring indices (e.g., redd counts) of migratory fish in the upstream waters. 44
Restore Riparian Habitat Restore riparian habitats to levels equivalent to the QHA-generated riparian condition habitat restoration scores of reference streams. Kootenai Identify impaired stream channel and riparian areas and implement tasks to restore their appropriate functions. Reconstruct stream banks in degraded riparian areas where needed to allow appropriate physical conditions for successful revegetation. 30

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Enhance Floodplain Rehabilitation of Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek Instream and floodplain rehabilitation Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek. This includes planting of vegetation. 7/1/2009 6/30/2010 $120,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve Channel Stability
Improve Habitat Diversity
Restore Riparian Habitat
* # of acres treated: 25

Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Rehabilitation of Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek Instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek. Also includes "As-Built" report, effectiveness monitoring and potential maintenance of structures. 7/1/2008 6/30/2010 $150,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve Channel Stability
Improve Habitat Diversity
Restore Riparian Habitat
* # of stream miles treated: 2

Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Rehabilitation of Reach 4 of Bighorn Creek Construction/installation of reach 4 habitat and channel morphology features. 7/1/2009 6/30/2010 $120,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve Channel Stability
Improve Habitat Diversity
Restore Riparian Habitat
* # of stream miles treated: 4

Manage and Administer Projects FY07, FY08 & FY09 SOW, Accrual Estimates and Sub-Contract Administration [Work Element Description Not Entered] 7/1/2007 6/30/2010 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Design and/or Specifications Design/Specifications for Rehabilitation of Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek Data collection (Level 2 Rosgen Survey and Level 2 FHAP) to produce the designs/specifications for instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 1 & 2 of Bighorn Creek. 7/1/2007 3/31/2008 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve Channel Stability
Improve Habitat Diversity
Restore Riparian Habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Design and/or Specifications Design/Specifications for Rehabilitation of Reach 4 & 5 of Bighorn Creek Data collection (Level 2 Rosgen Survey and Level 2 FHAP) to produce the designs/specifications for instream rehabilitation of BT and WCT habitat in Reach 4 of Bighorn Creek. 7/1/2008 3/31/2009 $45,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve Channel Stability
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability
Restore Riparian Habitat
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Annual Report [Work Element Description Not Entered] 7/1/2007 6/30/2010 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Status Report Status Reports in Pisces [Work Element Description Not Entered] 7/1/2007 6/30/2010 $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Annual Analysis of McNeil Core Samples Annual analysis of McNeil core substrate samples (84) from the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River watersheds to monitor bull trout spawning substrate quality. 7/1/2007 6/30/2010 $20,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Aerial Bull Trout Redd Survey Conduct an aerial (helicopter) redd survey of the St. Mary and North Fork White Rivers (anecdotal evidence supports spawning by adfluvial Lake Koocanusa bull trout). 10/1/2007 10/31/2007 $11,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Annual Bull Trout Redd Counts Annual bull trout redd counts in the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River Watersheds 10/1/2007 6/30/2010 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Annual McNeil Core Sampling Annual collection of McNeil core substrate samples (84) from the Wigwam, Skookumchuck and White River watersheds to monitor bull trout spawning substrate quality. The number of samples may increase if additional spawning locations are found in the St Mary and N. White drainages. 7/1/2007 6/30/2010 $14,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Monitor Bull Trout Population Stability
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel Mainly Sub-Contractor Fees (Biologists, Hydrologist & Technicians) $40,000 $70,000 $85,000
Supplies Mainly Materials (i.e. Rock, Trees, etc.), but it also includes heavy machine rates (i.e. excavator, rock and transport trucks) $5,000 $90,000 $180,000
Travel Accommodation, Meal per diem and Vehicle costs $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
Overhead [blank] $3,000 $10,000 $17,000
Other Helicopter costs $10,000 $ 0 $ 0
Totals $63,000 $180,000 $297,000

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$540,000
Total Work Element budget$540,000

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
Ministry of Environment Staff Time, Office Space & Equipment $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$200,000 $200,000 Proposed instream habitat complexity in Reach 5, 6 and 7 of Bighorn Creek in 2010 and onward
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Potential maintenance of in-stream structures (Reach 1 to 4) may be required after a few bankfull (or greater) events occur in the Bighorn Creek watershed.
 
Termination Date Comments
2012? The above termination date is an estimate of when the restoration work may be completed in Bighorn Creek. However, we plan to do additional restoration work in other high priority watersheds identified in the Kootenai Subbasin Plan and we would like to continue with this proposals Biological Objective 1 (Tributary Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring) in the future.
 
Final Deliverables
All reports and other deliverables outlined in Section 10 (subsection F) of this proposal.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$63,000
FY 2008 Budget
$63,000
FY 2009 Budget
$63,000
Total NPCC Rec
$189,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: The Mountain Columbia oversight group strongly recommends funding the monitoring components and modifying them to include radio telemetry work to learn to what extent other tributaries are used by spawning bull trout. This project needs to be directly coordinated with MFWP. Budget amount shown here reflects these changes.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$63,000
FY 2008 Budget
$63,000
FY 2009 Budget
$63,000
Total NPCC Rec
$189,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: The OG believes it is inappropriate to fund habitat restoration work in BC because it is not a BPA responsibility, however the OG strongly recommends funding the monitoring components and modifying them to include radio telemetry work to learn to what ext


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This proposal includes all the important parts. It has redd/adult counts, and they are gathering offspring data. These should permit an assessment of whether the number of offspring at any given spawner level has increased through time.

The sponsors seem very qualified and experienced, have a good protocol, and already have done some work similar to what is proposed on a lower stream section. It looks like the rehab would be done well and have a high probability of bolstering fish abundance. Hypotheses linking "habitat fixing recipes" and fishery benefits are driving a significant portion of fishery work in the Northwest. This project has potential to provide a test of that link.

From the Council and BPA, the ISRP also seeks clarification on what types of actions are eligible for funding in Canada. What is BPA’s mitigation responsibility in Canada for such projects as Libby Dam? Is there any Council or BPA policy on this?


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: The project is intended to mitigate for fish and fish habitat losses attributed to the construction and operation of Libby Dam. It proposes to continue baseline population monitoring of bull trout spawning in the upper Kootenai River and tributaries of Lake Koocanusa to assess the impact of reservoir operations and fishing/harvest opportunities. The new components for physical rehabilitation need to be more clearly justified. Is the proposed strategy consistent with emerging ideas regarding requirements for a successful restoration project (see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208–217, and references cited)?

The narrative includes a significant amount of data produced by the project so far. It includes a good synthesis of monitoring results. The sponsors should include a description of what they think these results mean with respect to the project's goals and objectives. For example, an increasing trend in population size was described. Can it be shown that this trend is a result of the habitat work being conducted? Reasons offered for the recent drop in redds included a recent slide and/or increased fishing pressure. How are these factors separated in analysis? It is important for the sponsors to show that this project has potential for producing quantitative relations between habitat engineering and fish abundance that could have widespread application.

Please respond to the questions and statements included in the previous paragraphs.

The ISRP also seeks clarification on what types of actions are eligible for funding in Canada. What is BPA’s mitigation responsibility in Canada for such projects as Libby Dam? Is there any Council or BPA policy on this?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.