Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Project Number:
2002-011-00
Title:
Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Summary:
Overview - Damming of rivers represents a cataclysmic event for large river-floodplain ecosystems. By altering water, sediment, and nutrient flow dynamics, dams interrupt and alter a river's important ecological processes in aquatic, riparian, floodplain and surrounding terrestrial environments. These environments, their life-supporting ecological functions, and the persistence of their floral and faunal communities are inexorably linked. Alteration of any component of such highly integrated natural systems generally results in cascading trophic effects throughout the ecosystem. Thus, major system perturbations, such as impounding large rivers, create a myriad of ecological dysfunction, reflected at all trophic levels on an ecosystem scale. The importance of nutrient and energy dynamics during natural pulses of water discharge in rivers has been extensively described in terms of river ecology (e.g. flood pulse, river continuum, nutrient spiraling, and serial discontinuity concepts). Incorporating this knowledge, we apply a structured series of ecological evaluations to a post-impoundment large river-floodplain ecosystem, the Kootenai River system, as part of a multidisciplinary, adaptive management approach to determine and quantify floodplain ecosystem function losses due to operation of Libby Dam. Moreover, the overarching objectives of this project are to assess abiotic and biotic factors (i.e., geomorphological, hydrological, aquatic and riparian/floodplain communities) in determining a definitive composition of the Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), producing a hydrologic predictive model and disseminate an operational loss assessment toolbox. The resulting downstream ecological dysfunction, its evaluation structure, protocols, and findings are applicable and valuable to other post-impoundment river systems in the Columbia Basin and elsewhere. Finally, this project emphasizes the need to establish a regionally accepted framework for operational loss assessments, and for the fish and wildlife managers in the Columbia River sub-basin to come to agreement on operational loss methodologies unlike crediting and ledger issues that hamper regional consensus.

Overarching Goal:
Create an operational loss assessment tool to assess ecological losses due to operations of Libby Dam. Protect, restore and/or enhance floodplain ecosystem, which has been altered and degraded by the operations of Libby Dam in the Kootenai Watershed (e.g. riparian, wetland, and related uplands and tributary areas) in order to promote healthy self-sustaining fish and wildlife populations, and functional restored or normative ecological functions within and among biotic communities with an emphasis on restoring sustainable hunting/gathering populations of flora and fauna for tribal sustenance. Provide a template/tool that can be used across other regions.

Objective A: Create methodologies that will best assess operational losses in the Kootenai River Watershed and are regionally applicable.

Objective B: Initiate the development of a framework for a regionally applicable operational loss assessment for the Columbia River Basin.

Objective C: Assist in the coordination and development of Citizen Committees and Technical Committees to create a geographically-specific and comprehensive process.

Objective D: Mitigate, restore and rehabilitate the Kootenai River floodplain system in such a way that it will provide sustainable populations of flora and fauna for tribal sustenance.

Purpose:
Produce an Operational Loss Assessment Tool that can estimate hydrologic, aquatic, riparian and associated terrestrial ecological losses due to Libby Dam operations in the Kootenai River floodplain and will be applicable in other post-development large river-floodplain ecosystems.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Kootenai Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2018
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Columbia Kootenai 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Sturgeon, White - Kootenai River DPS (endangered)
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 50.0%   Wildlife: 50.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

A 1-meter land cover classification of the OLA project area.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

A portion of the study area near Bonners Ferry from the 1958 aerial photo mosaic.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

The Kootenai River basin.

Figure Name: Appendix D, Figure 1

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 134

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

The Kootenai River meandering reach test site, indicated by the red rectangle.

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 149

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Vegetation mapped along the study site.

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 3

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 150

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Simulated landscape analysis area

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 5

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 151

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No shift scenario- Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 6

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 152

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift Scenario-Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 7

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 153

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift Scenario-Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Figure 8

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 153

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Start Condition.

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 156

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 3

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 157

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 4

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 158

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 5

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 159

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 6

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 159

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 7

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 160

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 8

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 161

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 9

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 162

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 10

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 163

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 11

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 164

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 12

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 165

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 13

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 166

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E, Annex I, Figure 14

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 167

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Simulated landscape analysis area.

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 5

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 158

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 13

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 173

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 14

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 174

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

A 1-meter land cover classification of the OLA project area.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

A portion of the study area near Bonners Ferry from the 1958 aerial photo mosaic.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Simulated vegetation maps indicating various phases of vegetation communities for different years (Benjankar, 2009)

Figure Name: Appendix C-Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 116

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

The Kootenai River basin.

Figure Name: Appendix D-Figure 1

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 141

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

The Kootenai River meandering reach test site, indicated by the red rectangle.

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 156

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Vegetation mapped along the study site.

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 3

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 157

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No shift scenario- Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 6

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 159

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift Scenario-Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 7

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 160

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift Scenario-Simulated year 1994 (22nd Simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Figure 8

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 160

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

Start Condition.

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 2

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 163

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 3

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 164

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 4

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 165

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 5

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 166

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

No Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 6

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 166

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 7

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 167

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 8

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 168

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1994 (22nd simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 9

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 169

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

10th year Shift scenario, simulated year 1997 (25th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 10

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 170

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1983 (10th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 11

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 171

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164

3rd Year Shift scenario, simulated year 1987 (15th simulated year).

Figure Name: Appendix E-Annex I-Figure 12

Document ID: P122092

Document: FY 2010 Annual Report

Page Number: 172

Project: 2002-011-00

Contract: 50164


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $735,462 $735,462 $735,462 $735,462 $760,189

General $735,462 $735,462 $735,462 $760,189
FY2018 (Current) $734,712 $734,712 $734,712 $734,712 $70,214

General $734,712 $734,712 $734,712 $70,214
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

General $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $735,462 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $734,712 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2017 0 %
FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 5 %
FY2011 4 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 5 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
74469 SOW Kootenai Tribe 2002-011-00 EXP KOOTENAI RIVER OPS MITIGATION & EVALUATION Issued $735,462 12/1/2016 - 11/30/2017
76826 REL 1 SOW Kootenai Tribe 2002-011-00 EXP KOOTENAI RIVER OPS MITIGATION & EVALUATION Issued $734,712 12/1/2017 - 11/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):13
Completed:13
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:58
On time:30
Avg Days Late:11

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
12098 24640, 30578, 35521, 39852, 45079, 50164, 54924, 60124, 63143, 66918, 70698, 74469, 76826 REL 1 2002-011-00 FLOODPLAIN OPERATION LOSS ASSESSMENT Kootenai Tribe 04/2002 04/2002 Issued 58 159 13 0 3 175 98.29% 0
Project Totals 58 159 13 0 3 175 98.29% 0


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Development and validation of the Operational Loss Assessment tool are technically and scientifically justified. Although long and detailed, this is an outstanding proposal that continues to model how research can be usefully integrated into more immediate program goals. This project is not only benefiting the subbasin but the Program overall by demonstrating what could be achieved elsewhere in terms of interdisciplinary value, program integration, and community involvement, all to benefit fish and wildlife.

There is an excellent discussion of problems with HSI/HEP relative to interactions and subjective assessment of variables. This promises a more usable model for accounting and effectiveness monitoring based on current science, as a future alternative to HEP. This model might be considered for adaptation/application in the Willamette Valley where HEP has been particularly problematic and similar regional integration exists.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The development of a process to determine habitat and wildlife resource losses related to dam operations is a very worthwhile objective, and the approach being used by the sponsors is technically sound. Success in developing a tool that can be applied at other locations in the Columbia Basin will make a significant contribution to the region. The clear relationship to the subbasin plan, degree of integration with other regional efforts and Program-funded projects is exemplary. Continuing community involvement following subbasin planning is a wise investment. Table D-1 concisely demonstrates relationships among projects. In some ways it seems to be premature to request funding for property acquisition and restoration projects before the Operational Loss Assessment (OLA) methodology has been completed.

2. Project History and Results
The project history is thoroughly described, and it is evident that significant progress has been made towards developing a comprehensive Operational Loss Assessment tool. They have assembled a 17-member research design and review team, started avian point counts; evaluated hydrologic data before and after the dam; continued avian and invertebrate point counts; used remote sensing land classifications; validated avian data 2002-2007; assessed sampling design and intensity; evaluated vegetation hydraulic model; and assessed sample size and power of invertebrate sampling in 2008. Publications and presentations are useful results that add scientific credibility. The timeline makes flow from history to future clear.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The project has four phases: (1) operational loss assessment, (2) habitat and population protection, (3) mitigation, and (4) restoration. It is currently in phase 1 with objectives to collect and refine monitoring data based upon statistical needs, to document methodologies and analyses, to develop an Operational Loss Framework Manual in 2010- 2012, and to develop an Index of Ecological Integrity.

The objectives, work elements, and methods for development of the OLA process appear to be appropriate. Assessing sample size and power of data collection protocols add rigor and credibility to the data and their use in model development. The centralized database is an advantage. References cite current efforts of project participants and others active in the fields of science involved.

There were several work elements for which additional information would be useful. The method by which the avian and invertebrate IBIs will be combined into a terrestrial IBI was not fully explained. Similarly, the method by which the IHA, IFA, IVA, T-IBI, A-IBI and any other information sources will be combined into an overall IEA was only described briefly. The pie-chart diagrams used to display the deviation from historical function for the IFA are one possible method for combining metrics into an IEA. This would indicate which components were most severely degraded but how would this be interpreted in terms of establishing restoration priorities? More description of possible approaches to developing the IEA would provide a better idea how difficult this final step is likely to be.

Validation of many model parts will be occurring during 2010 and 2011. Therefore, determination of the value of this approach for informing restoration planning processes will not be complete until late 2011 or 2012. Is there a plan for external review of results at this point?

4. M&E
The OLA development is essentially a research effort. A large proportion of the proposal could be considered as RM&E, and most of these elements are very well done. The model development and database are a foundation for future M&E. A comprehensive M&E plan will be developed as a part of the restoration plan that will be based on OLA results. Evaluation of the M&E approach in the restoration plan cannot occur until that time.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
Development and validation of the Operational Loss Assessment tool are technically and scientifically justified. Although long and detailed, this is an outstanding proposal that continues to model how research can be usefully integrated into more immediate program goals. This project is not only benefiting the subbasin but the Program overall by demonstrating what could be achieved elsewhere in terms of interdisciplinary value, program integration, and community involvement, all to benefit fish and wildlife.

There is an excellent discussion of problems with HSI/HEP relative to interactions and subjective assessment of variables. This promises a more usable model for accounting and effectiveness monitoring based on current science, as a future alternative to HEP. This model might be considered for adaptation/application in the Willamette Valley where HEP has been particularly problematic and similar regional integration exists.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The development of a process to determine habitat and wildlife resource losses related to dam operations is a very worthwhile objective, and the approach being used by the sponsors is technically sound. Success in developing a tool that can be applied at other locations in the Columbia Basin will make a significant contribution to the region. The clear relationship to the subbasin plan, degree of integration with other regional efforts and Program-funded projects is exemplary. Continuing community involvement following subbasin planning is a wise investment. Table D-1 concisely demonstrates relationships among projects. In some ways it seems to be premature to request funding for property acquisition and restoration projects before the Operational Loss Assessment (OLA) methodology has been completed.

2. Project History and Results
The project history is thoroughly described, and it is evident that significant progress has been made towards developing a comprehensive Operational Loss Assessment tool. They have assembled a 17-member research design and review team, started avian point counts; evaluated hydrologic data before and after the dam; continued avian and invertebrate point counts; used remote sensing land classifications; validated avian data 2002-2007; assessed sampling design and intensity; evaluated vegetation hydraulic model; and assessed sample size and power of invertebrate sampling in 2008. Publications and presentations are useful results that add scientific credibility. The timeline makes flow from history to future clear.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The project has four phases: (1) operational loss assessment, (2) habitat and population protection, (3) mitigation, and (4) restoration. It is currently in phase 1 with objectives to collect and refine monitoring data based upon statistical needs, to document methodologies and analyses, to develop an Operational Loss Framework Manual in 2010- 2012, and to develop an Index of Ecological Integrity.

The objectives, work elements, and methods for development of the OLA process appear to be appropriate. Assessing sample size and power of data collection protocols add rigor and credibility to the data and their use in model development. The centralized database is an advantage. References cite current efforts of project participants and others active in the fields of science involved.

There were several work elements for which additional information would be useful. The method by which the avian and invertebrate IBIs will be combined into a terrestrial IBI was not fully explained. Similarly, the method by which the IHA, IFA, IVA, T-IBI, A-IBI and any other information sources will be combined into an overall IEA was only described briefly. The pie-chart diagrams used to display the deviation from historical function for the IFA are one possible method for combining metrics into an IEA. This would indicate which components were most severely degraded but how would this be interpreted in terms of establishing restoration priorities? More description of possible approaches to developing the IEA would provide a better idea how difficult this final step is likely to be.

Validation of many model parts will be occurring during 2010 and 2011. Therefore, determination of the value of this approach for informing restoration planning processes will not be complete until late 2011 or 2012. Is there a plan for external review of results at this point?

4. M&E
The OLA development is essentially a research effort. A large proportion of the proposal could be considered as RM&E, and most of these elements are very well done. The model development and database are a foundation for future M&E. A comprehensive M&E plan will be developed as a part of the restoration plan that will be based on OLA results. Evaluation of the M&E approach in the restoration plan cannot occur until that time.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Staff recommended budget is a 3-year average (FY2010-2012) to cover the time anticpated to complete the operational loss assessment. Staff recommends an ISRP and Council review of the competed operational loss assessment. Out-year budgets for capital and expense to be determined based on that review. Programmatic issue # 10.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Regional Coordination funding
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-011-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Developing "operational" loss assessment for Libby Dam.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-011-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This 116-page proposal reads more like a dissertation and would probably be more effective if edited to eliminate non-essential (from review standpoint) background and explanation of terms and processes. Eliminating redundancies would streamline the proposal, making its strong structure more apparent. The proposal clearly relates to Program, subbasin plan and other initiatives in the region. Focal species and habitats are considered in model development. This is a highly technical proposal involving many cooperators and consultants. Including staff training is an excellent move to keep staff growing with the project, fostering ownership of the process and products. The budget for travel does seem excessive, however, even given the training component. This proposal should be closely coordinated with Albeni Falls Operational Assessment, 200731200, from the Kalispel Tribe. Major accomplishments are lost in reams of detail in narrative. Summary in form is more useful as an overview. The plan to report results in peer-reviewed outlets is laudatory. M&E is actually part of the design process rather than an after-thought, consistent with the exploratory nature of the project.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-011-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-011-00 - Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Scott Soults Project Lead Kootenai Tribe
Sue Ireland Supervisor Kootenai Tribe
Norm Merz Technical Contact Kootenai Tribe
John Barco III (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Edna Runyan Administrative Contact Kootenai Tribe
Ted Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Virgil Watts III Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration