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
Libby Reservoir Mitigation Plan

BPA project number   9500400

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding

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

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

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   10.3B.1, 10.3B.11

Short description
Compilation of loss/gain statement, Libby fisheries mitigation options and site plans, criteria for selecting and prioritizing mitigation projects, public scoping and submittal to NPPC.

Project start year   1995    End year   1997

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
Projects 8346700 Kootenai IFIM and 8446500 Libby Technical Analysis: operational mitigation and site planning. Project 9501200 Monitoring/Evaluation of IRCs: follow-up on operational changes. Project 9502600 Kootenai Model Watershed: coordination with this project will be supervised by Kootenai Basin Steering Committee.

Project history
Public scoping, project site selection and loss/gain assessment began in 1995. CSKT and MFWP will produce a draft document for submittal to NPPC during 1996.

Biological results achieved
Planning phase only.

Annual reports and technical papers
Preliminary draft of loss/gain statement, criteria for project selection and list of proposed projects is on file at MFWP.

Management implications
Libby Fisheries Mitigation Plan will guide mitigation activities under project 8346700.

Specific measureable objectives
(1) Prepare a mitigation plan to compensate for fisheries losses due to the construction and operation of Libby Dam including loss/gain statement, criteria for project prioritization and list of mitigation options. (2) Stimulate public interest in the Kootenai Drainage using education measures, public scoping meetings and a citizens advisory committee.

Testable hypothesis
See project 8346700 in reference to mitigation implementation.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
All planning will be accomplished consistent with Montana Fisheries Mitigation Policy. The mitigation plan will compliment model watershed efforts.

(1) Loss statement involved digitization of inundated tributary and river habitat. Lost production of juvenile recruitment was extrapolated from pristine drainages by measurement of stream gradient, size and order. Population status was derived from ongoing research in the Kootenai Drainage. This plan will be modeled after the Hungry Horse mitigation planning and implementation documents and public scoping process. (2) Very little statistical analysis is necessary but all such mathematical analysis will be conducted through University statistical consultation. (3) None.

Brief schedule of activities
Plan is expected to be submitted to NPPC in December 1996 as per NPPC measures 10.3B.1 and 11.

Biological need
Mitigation for the construction and operation of Libby Dam is called for by the NPPC program. The Kootenai Drainage contains endangered white sturgeon and species of special concern: bull trout, westslope cutthroat and interior redband.

Critical uncertainties
The timing of submittal to NPPC is subject to funding and efficiency of personnel. Note: No new personnel have been hired to complete the plan.

Summary of expected outcome
Libby Mitigation Plan and subsequent implementation.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Final form depends on NPPC approval. See Libby mitigation cooperative agreements in project 8346700. Cooperative efforts and cost-shares have already been demonstrated in public scoping, pilot projects and through state/tribal contacts. The plan will be jointly submitted by FWP, CSKT and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Many projects have and will be jointly prepared with the U.S. Forest Service.

None, planning only.

Monitoring activity
We estimate about 25 percent of the final mitigation budget will focus on monitoring.

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) Obligation: 0
Authorized: 150,000
Planned: 134,576
1997: 38,240

* 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   $38,240

BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget)   $162,307