The response failed to fully address several of the major concerns raised in the original ISRP review. The four, primary concerns expressed in the original review were:

1. Provide a synthesis and model of the existing data as justification and guidance for prioritizing project activities and identify the most promising future projects.
2. Specify the RM&E and adaptive management plans in sufficient detail for ISRP review.
3. Further detail is required on the staging of the various components of restoration.
4. The ISRP requested clarification on the relationships and coordination among the various restoration projects that are being implemented on this stretch of the Kootenai River.

The ISRP concerns about the staging of various components of this project were partially addressed. The text and tables included in the response to clarify scheduling were helpful. The inclusion of the Gantt chart that was requested in the original ISRP review did not help because it was unreadable. The sponsor indicated that the lack of clarity in their description of the sequencing of project activities in the original proposal was largely due to the structure of the Objectives section of the proposal form. Although the form may be cumbersome, many of the other projects reviewed by the ISRP were able to clearly convey scheduling of project activities. Although the response partially addressed the ISRP concern on this issue, the sequencing of objectives and work elements presented is still confusing.

Administrative relationships among the Kootenai River projects were adequately described in the response. However, technical relationships among the various projects were not described. This problem was common to all the Kootenai River proposals. For that reason, the ISRP suggests that a synthesis report be produced summarizing the results that have been obtained from the RM&E efforts associated with these projects. The synthesis should not be a simple tabulation of data collected but a concise and comprehensive interpretation that can be used to guide current and future restoration efforts on this system. This qualification has been applied to all Kootenai River projects currently being reviewed (199404900, 200200800, and 200200200).A review of the ocean research being funded by BPA was recently completed and could serve as a template for a synthesis report on the Kootenai River (ISRP 2012-3).The sponsors of all the Kootenai River projects should also be more aggressive about publishing the results of the research being conducted on the river and floodplain. These are very large projects with the potential to be a model for river/floodplain restoration. However, the experiences gained through the implementation of these projects cannot be effectively shared unless this information is published.

A link to the draft Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) was provided with the response. Although still under development, this plan does indicate the types of information that will be used to assess project effectiveness and provides a process by which this information will be used to modify future restoration efforts and monitoring plans. However, some vital elements of an adaptive management process appear to be missing. For example, how experimentation will be structured in a manner that will inform decisions and how management decisions will be made are not described.

The relationship between the subbasin AMP and the monitoring planned for the reconnect projects is not clear. The response includes a lengthy description of various biotic indices used to track biological response to project implementation. These indices are not explicitly addressed in the subbasin AMP plan, leaving it unclear as to how the monitoring of the reconnect projects will be integrated into the subbasin AMP process.

The biotic indices are a useful mechanism for assessing biological response to the reconnect projects. However, without accompanying information on changes in physical and chemical habitat attributes, it may be very difficult to ascribe a cause to an observed change in an index. Ideally, an RM&E plan would be developed that couples these indices with assessment of water chemistry, physical habitat conditions, and trophic relationships. The process to be used for data storage and retention was fully explained and appears well designed.

A dynamic ecosystem model (e.g., Ecopath) would also help the sponsors address their goal of “creating conditions that help support and enhance the food web” of the Kootenai River. Use of such a model would help link the reconnect project to efforts on the mainstem of the river and provide insight into how this project will support the overarching objective for the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Plan (KRHRP), which seems to be “Restore and maintain Kootenai River habitat conditions that support all life stages of Endangered Species Act listed Kootenai River white sturgeon; Restore and maintain Kootenai River habitat conditions that support all life stages of native Kootenai subbasin focal fish species” (from proposal project 200200200). Such a model would be useful in the context of the Operational Loss activities as well.

The response to the ISRP concern that climate change was not being adequately considered was not sufficient, and the response about invasive species was incomplete. The response to this issue creates the impression that climate change has not been seriously considered in the design of the restoration strategy for the Kootenai River and its floodplain. Further,description of procedures to monitor the spread of Didymo was complete but there was no discussion of measures being implemented to address other invasive species.

The ISRP request to see a more thorough explanation of how the baseline information was used to inform the design of the Ball Creek project was not fully addressed. The original proposal and the response indicated that considerable effort had been devoted to collect information on characteristics of the Ball Creek project site prior to designing the reconnection project. The ISRP desired some discussion of how this baseline information influenced the design of the restoration plan. The information provided only superficially addressed this point.

Despite the remaining deficiencies in the proposal, Objective 1 (continue with the Ball Creek reconnection) has progressed to the point where implementation seems appropriate. In addition, the approach proposed for Objective 3 (restoration ranking plan) appears to be technically justified. However, the adequacy of the approach for Objective 2, the design and implementation of future reconnect projects, cannot be assessed from the information provided. The prioritization process for identifying future projects (Objective 3) needs to be completed and specific future project sites identified before components of the project related to Objective 2 can be reviewed. It seems premature to include funding for future restoration project design and implementation until sites are identified and some understanding of the nature and extent of the work required is determined.

Responses requested:

1. Further detail is required on the staging of the various components of restoration.
2. Specify the RM&E and adaptive management plans in sufficient detail for ISRP review.
3. Provide a synthesis and model of the existing data as justification and guidance for prioritizing project activities

This project is addressing an important habitat deficiency in the project area. However, the proposal was poorly organized, making it difficult to understand how activities were to be sequenced and the extent to which proposed actions were founded on previously collected data. There was no indication that data previously collected has been synthesized to any appreciable extent or used in a formal manner, statistical or otherwise, to guide development of project activities. Further detail is required on the staging of the various components of restoration. A flow chart or Gantt diagram would be very useful in this regard. The field visit in October provided insights into the complexities being faced by the sponsors, but these were not adequately reflected in the proposal.

RME and adaptive management components of the plan are incompletely described. The sponsors indicate that these topics are to be addressed in two documents that are currently being developed. RME and adaptive management are critical components of any restoration effort and a complete technical review of this project would require that these two plans be included with the proposal. At a minimum, the subbasin adaptive management plan should be included with the response to this ISRP review.

The ISRP requests a revised proposal that emphasizes synthesis and modeling of the existing data as justification and guidance for ecosystem scale restoration activities and that focuses on the priority activities needed to make the floodplain functional once again. This project has tremendous potential, not only locally in terms of restoring fish and wildlife, but also as a demonstration to the broader restoration community as to what is possible. Unfortunately, the present proposal will not achieve that potential.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Restoration of riparian wetlands along this reach of the Kootenai River would be significant to regional ecological restoration. Almost all listed species will potentially benefit from floodplain reconnection. As an example the Meander Reach of the Kootenai River, where this project will occur, is listed as critical bull trout habitat in the 2006 BiOp.

The proposal clearly defines the historic extent and biological productivity of wetlands along the Kootenai River in Idaho and the extent to which floodplain habitat in this region has been reduced. The authors seem quite familiar with the literature on the subject matter and adequately describe the impacts of the operation of Libby Dam and altered land use on ecological processes of the study reach. The technical background provides a fairly good description of the problem and relies heavily on the Operational Loss Assessment results. It would have been helpful to provide a link to the Operational Loss Assessment as this document did provide useful information, especially for showing the changes in trophic structure along the various reaches. For example, the ISRP also found a useful presentation of the Loss Assessment at www.powershow.com/view/14ff6e-YjI1Y/Floodplain_Operational_Loss_
Assessment_on_the_Kootenai_River_Watershed_Downstream_from_Libby_Dam_flash_ppt_presentation. One issue that was not adequately discussed in the proposal was the extent to which flows from Libby Dam could be manipulated to encourage more channel-floodplain interaction. 

There appears to be some discrepancy between the objectives of this project and the assumptions on which other proposed projects on the Kootenai River are based. The sponsors state, “The project was originally designed to improve conditions for larval and juvenile rearing of Kootenai sturgeon and positively affect sturgeon recovery by restoring natural ecosystem functions. The project was funded to locate a site and evaluate its suitability for reconnecting the river and floodplain (Scott and Clayton 2004). The objective of this initial phase was to find a site that would provide low-velocity, off-channel refugia for juvenile sturgeon and stimulate ecological function by expanding floodplain habitats and associated trophic productivity.” The Kootenai proposal that is focused on ecosystem restoration for sturgeon is based on the assumption that recruitment at the larval stage is a bottleneck, not survival of the juvenile stage, which would likely use off channel habitat provided by this project. Riparian wetland restoration is still a worthwhile objective. But the benefits for sturgeon presumed from this project should be consistent with the assumptions in the other proposals.

A significant problem with the objectives is that there is no guiding model(s) based on previous data to prioritize the research and restoration efforts. A substantial amount of work has already been done, but it is not informing the next restoration phase in a logical and quantifiable manner. Thesupporting text for each objective is often inadequate. For example, OBJ-3 seeks to implement invasive species control management techniques in floodplain habitats (a general objective) by 2015, but only Reed canarygrass is targeted (very specific). This objective also suggests the assumption that natural communities will outcompete Reed canary grass if native vegetation is introduced on a site. Generally this is not the case until habitat conditions that discourage reed canarygrass such as flooding frequency are sufficiently restored. In some cases, even the restoration of habitat conditions appropriate for native species may not be sufficient to enable suppress canarygrass, and ongoing site maintenance may be required. OBJ-2 seeks to implement floodplain reconnection activities in conjunction with BPA mitigation projects 199206105 and mitigation phase of 200201100 by 2021 but the text only addresses strengthening the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program’s ability to share resources, information, and reduce duplication and costs in floodplain ecosystem restoration. Other objectives share these problems.

The reality is that the river is fundamentally different now than prior to European settlement and construction of Libby Dam. A new system has emerged, one that is not well connected to the historic floodplain ecosystem, and restoration of previous functionality requires thinking in new ways and on new scales. The proposal does not fully communicate an understanding of how this project will be linked to ecosystem responses at broader scales. While there are lots of activities taking place there is a notable lack of synthesis both in working models and in peer review publications.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The history of this project is thoroughly described in the proposal. The project sponsors have conducted baseline research and monitoring to understand the nutrient dynamics within lotic and lentic systems on the Kootenai river floodplain and using this information formulate the hypothesis that wetland restoration may increase nutrient delivery to the river and stimulate primary and secondary productivity. The ISRP identified several issues related to the interpretation of the baseline information:

1. The trophic analyses are quite limited as there is no mention of decomposition, organic matter dynamics, or microbial food webs.
   
   
2. The low chlorophyll a levels in water samples from lotic systems was interpreted as an indication of low primary productivity in these systems relative to lentic habitats. However, most primary production in small, flowing systems is supported by periphyton, algae attached to the streambed substrate, rather than from phytoplankton in the water column. Phytoplankton is more prevalent in lotic habitats. Therefore, the contrast in chlorophyll a levels between these habitat types may be an artifact of the sampling methods rather than an actual disparity in primary production. 
   
   
3. The sponsors state (p.13) “In addition to nutrient sampling, we collected samples that represented primary producing organisms (chlorophyll a and phytoplankton taxonomy) as well as primary producing organisms (zooplankton).” Please note, zooplankton are secondary producers.
   
   
4. The proposal also states “The graphs shown in Figure 20 suggest that the increased primary production (chlorophyll a) in the lentic areas might reflect the increased nitrogen (DIN) available,” but earlier they state that data were not sufficient for statistical analyses (note lack of error bars on Fig 20).

Despite these issues with data interpretation and analysis, the conclusion that increasing the presence of riparian wetlands would be of benefit to the ecological health of the ecosystem is still valid. But it will be important to ensure that deficiencies in sampling and data analysis are addressed in RME efforts designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ball Creek wetland restoration project and other floodplain reconnection projects in the meander reach. 

The adaptive management effort associated with this project was not adequately described in the proposal. The project appears to have some form of an adaptive learning process but the proposal does not clearly describe the structure of this process. Is there an effective mechanism for transferring RME information to decision makers? Is there a formal process for using this information to make project management decisions? How are decisions made and who makes them? The proposal does indicate that a subbasin-scale adaptive management plan is under development, and this plan will guide adaptive management efforts for all habitat restoration efforts in the project area. Presumably, these questions will be addressed in the plan. However, the adequacy of the adaptive management process for this project cannot be assessed unless this plan is a component of the proposal.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The results of research conducted to date in support of this project are described in the proposal, as noted above. However, it is not clear that this information has been used to full advantage. At least three key activities are missing that are essential for success: hypothesis testing, model development, and serious periodic information syntheses. Substantial information is being acquired about the system, but it is not being effectively translated into knowledge or actions that will do more than provide incremental benefits to fish and wildlife.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The relationship of this project to other efforts ongoing in the same area was not fully described. In particular, there seems to be considerable overlap in project objectives between this project and the large habitat restoration program proposed for this reach of the Kootenai River (200200200 - Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon). The project reviewed here provides details for a specific project, the restoration of Ball Creek and associated wetlands, while the other proposal for "Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon" describes a large habitat restoration program that will identify and implement a variety of projects over time, including the restoration or riparian wetlands. Both this proposal and the one for the restoration program should have clearly indicated why these proposals are separate and how efforts between these two projects are being coordinated. The relationship between these proposals was only very briefly discussed. This proposal also indicates that there has been an ongoing study of nutrient dynamics in the project reach, yet no results from this effort are presented in the proposal. It would seem, given that one of the key objectives of the Ball Creek wetland restoration is to increase nutrient delivery to the Kootenai River, that these efforts would be closely coordinated. But the relationship between these projects is only briefly discussed.

The project does indicate that they will utilize hydrologic models to predict possible impacts of climate change on project effectiveness.Potential changes in winter ice conditions due to climate change or alterations in winter flow conditions were not discussed. Icing is a major driver of ecological processes in streams and shallow water areas, and winter icing conditions are influenced by alterations to temperature, cloudiness, vegetation, and water flows. There is no mention of possible impacts for increasing human population or alteration of land use over time. Also, the potential impact of invasive species, other that Reed canarygrass, was not addressed. Given that Didymo does occur in the system and that there are a number of other aquatic species whose introduction could affect project success, this factor should be considered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

While it is refreshing to see the project taking an ecosystem approach to floodplain restoration, it is important to proceed in a logical and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, it appears from the long list of deliverables that the sponsors are trying to do everything at once. Further, there are deliverables that overlap as well as deliverables that should have been completed as part of previous projects or as part of the proposal preparation process. For example, CR1-4 (Literature review and study design analysis of critical uncertainties research) and CR3-4 (Sampling and laboratory analysis protocol development) should have been completed and used in the development of this proposal. Similarly, P&C2-5 (2D floodplain inundation hydrologic modeling and USGS ground/surface water review), a review and analysis of the 2D floodplain hydrologic modeling efforts for project 200201100, should have been completed, and the results used to develop this proposal. Most importantly, there are no priorities for the deliverables. The Deliverables aspect of the proposal needs to be revised and consolidated to show deliverables as part of an integrated research/ restoration effort. One or more deliverables should focus on a major synthesis (to be peer-reviewed) and the development of a quantitative ecosystem model(s).

The work elements proposed for this project are quite detailed but poorly organized. As a result, it was difficult to relate work elements with their associated deliverables and objectives. The manner in which the work elements were presented also made it difficult to envision how the project is intended to be sequenced. Three work elements: IV1-3: Literature review for invasive species control management techniques; IV2-3: Experimental design for invasive species control management techniques; IV3-3: Implement invasive species control management techniques, could benefit from review of the invasive species control work described in the ISAB Invasive Species Report and ISRP Wildlife Reviews.

There is a lack of detail on the RME effort that will evaluate project effectiveness. The proposal indicates that a subbasin scale adaptive management plan is under development and that RME will be comprehensively described in this document. Only a very general description of the monitoring goals, design, and protocols is provided in the proposal. This adaptive management plan should be included with the response to the ISRP comments. Technical evaluation of the RME and adaptive management components of this proposal are not possible without this plan.

There was inadequate discussion of data management in the proposal. Data management and retention protocols are critical for an RME effort, especially for large projects like those planned for the Kootenai River and its floodplain. There also is a concern about the data management being off-site, but perhaps that will be appropriate over the longer term as data management becomes increasingly complex. The ISRP hopes this issue will be thoroughly addressed in the subbasin adaptive management plan. As noted above, this plan needs to be included as a component of a revised proposal to enable ISRP review of RME and adaptive management associated with the suite of Kootenai River projects.

As a general comment, substantial data has been collected for this project already, but little predictive understanding seems to be emerging. Basically the group is drowning in unassessed data without fully using it to generate knowledge. More emphasis should be placed on generating syntheses from these data. Application of predictive models and rigorous use of testable hypotheses/relationships in developing syntheses will help generate information useful for informing managers and guiding future RME efforts.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The general outline of the RME process to be used in assessing the Ball Creek wetland restoration project is very brief. A link was provided to website that was supposed to provide additional detail on the sampling methods to be employed. The descriptions of many of the methods at this site were not complete and, therefore, could not be adequately evaluated.

Some of the methods that were briefly described in the proposal did raise questions. The sponsors state, “From its inception, the Reconnect Project built in a Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) component that estimates trophic level responses to proposed restoration of floodplain and ecosystem function. Subbasin-wide monitoring will provide a long-term baseline, plus feed back into the overall Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), developed by the Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment Project (BPA 200201100), to capture the contributions of each project and the cumulative effects of multiple projects to the IEI.” However, the IEI appears to be a very simplistic and preliminary method of aggregating effects. The sponsors want to develop a trophic model which will apparently supersede the IEI. More information is required on the proposed model. The proposal also mentions a fish index, but methods for sampling fish or specifics about the index are not given. Are fish assessment protocols aligned with those to be used in project 199806500, Kootenai River Fishery Investigations?

200200800 - Reconnect Kootenai River with Historic Floodplain

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe

ISRP Recommendation: Response requested

200200800 - Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI) Response to ISRP Comments

The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) recently released Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review: Preliminary Review of Proposals (ISRP 2012-2) and requested a point-by-point response to its comments. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI or Tribe) respectfully submits the following response to ISRP comments on the Reconnect Project (200200800). We appreciate this opportunity to provide the ISRP with additional clarification and details on Reconnect project activities and look forward to receiving further input and suggestions to refine the project so that we may improve upon our ongoing efforts.

The ISRP’s comments on the Reconnect Project are generally organized into three (3) primary Categories, including:

1. Provide a synthesis and model of the existing data as justification and guidance for prioritizing project activities.
2. Specify the RM&E and adaptive management plans in sufficient detail for ISRP review.
3. Further detail is required on the staging of the various components of restoration.

Many of the ISRP’s recurring comments can generally be addressed by each category, but the ISRP also had a variety of specific comments which we organized around resounding themes, or Groups, including:

1. The Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI)
2. Baseline Nutrient Information and Nutrient Dynamics
3. Climate Change
4. Threats: Population Growth, Land Alteration, Invasive Species
5. Overlap with other KTOI Projects
6. Manipulating Flows below Libby Dam
7. Coordinating Implementation with other BPA-funded Projects

The most prominent aspect of the Reconnect Project is that the resounding ISRP comments, which we consolidated into three primary Categories (A-C), are integrally linked throughout the procedural foundation of the Kootenai Tribe’s Wildlife Program:

1. The Operational Loss Assessment (OpLoss) Project (200201100) performs the primary ecological assessment function and provides the conceptual framework (research, modeling, hypothesis and monitoring development) that guides the Reconnect Project.
2. The Reconnect Project assesses the feasibility and ranks floodplain reconnection/restoration opportunities based on the ecosystem threats and viability indices identified by the OpLoss Project.
3. Where there are protection/restoration actions, the Tribe employs mitigation funding from both the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (199206105) and the Libby Dam mitigation phase of the OpLoss Project.
4. Each reconnection or mitigation project can be folded back into the ecological framework developed by the OpLoss Project so as to assess cumulative impacts of multiple projects over time.

Category A:    Provide a synthesis and model of the existing data as justification and guidance for prioritizing project activities.

Comment:      “As a general comment, substantial data has been collected for this project already, but little predictive understanding seems to be emerging. Application of predictive models and rigorous use of testable hypotheses/relationships in developing syntheses will help generate information useful for informing managers and guiding future RME efforts.”…“There was no indication that data previously collected has been synthesized to any appreciable extent or used in a formal manner, statistical or otherwise, to guide development of project activities.”

Response:

The Tribe is not unlike other corporate managers under pressure to continually add metrics to track and analyze performance. The number of parameters, complexity of processes, and cost would necessarily continue to rise. In response to this dynamic, we are confident that the ISRP can appreciate the fact that the Tribe is grappling with creating an integrated approach to track a multitude of metrics concurrently within a broader system framework. We are challenged with the process of implementing numerous projects aimed at assessing, and ultimately restoring, various ecosystem components in a Program environment that still not only emphasizes endangered species recovery but also is funded according to anadromous fish, resident fish, and wildlife impacts resulting from the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). The science of ecosystem assessment and restoration may be espoused by the ISRP but we do not see it being evaluated, implemented and funded as such within the Council’s Program. Our challenge is in developing ecosystem-based project proposals that fit within the prescribed box of BPA’s three funding priorities (anadromous fish, resident fish, wildlife) and tying those proposals together in a way that adequately addresses ISRP’s scientific rigor, corresponds to the Council’s Program, and falls within the purview of BPA’s mitigation responsibilities.

The Tribe has chosen to utilize an ecosystem-informed approach to its suite of projects that considers the combined interactions of biological or living components (plant, animal, and microorganism communities) of the environment, and physical or nonliving components (air, water, soil, and the other basic elements and compounds) of the environment. This approach considers the structure of ecosystems (in terms of elements present within the systems) that in turn affect the function, which relates to both the flow of ecosystem services, as well as the resilience of these systems (Waage et al. 2011).

Although the Tribe is focused on the long-term sustainability of the Kootenai River ecosystem with an emphasis on the intrinsic importance of biodiversity, we see a larger paradigm shift occurring that centers on ecosystem services concepts, metrics, and valuation. A growing number of government agencies in the U.S. and around the world are supporting new initiatives and policies that relate to ecosystem services (Waage et al. 2011):

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development research agenda and projects
• U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Environmental Markets strategic agenda
• BLM and USGS funding of ecosystem services tool testing and development
• Relating concepts within Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs)

We respectfully encourage BPA and the Council to embrace this impending shift particularly with regard to the operational impacts of the FCRPS on biodiversity and ecosystems.

The Tribe’s Wildlife Department has adopted an ecosystem-based conceptual model that guides our assessment work and drives our adaptive management process (Figure 1).

Figure 1.  Ecosystem conceptual model and adaptive management process for the Kootenai Tribal Wildlife Department, which includes the OpLoss Project (200201100), the Reconnect Project (200200800), and the Albeni Falls Project (199206105).

The table at the bottom of Figure 1 illustrates which KTOI projects generate data for the various ecosystem components. It is important to note, however, that all the Tribe’s projects share data and models to make better use of cost and time efficiencies.

Comment:      “The ISRP requests a revised proposal that emphasizes synthesis and modeling of the existing data as justification and guidance for ecosystem scale restoration activities and that focuses on the priority activities needed to make the floodplain functional once again.”

Response:

The Tribe initially proposed the Reconnect Project (200200800) in 2002 as a wildlife project whose primary goal is to assess the feasibility of reconnection opportunities between the Kootenai River and the historic floodplain. Although the project was proposed as a wildlife project, we understood that floodplain restoration will provide ancillary benefits to aquatic habitats and species, including sturgeon, burbot, kokanee and other native salmonids. The initial project objectives included 1) identification and prioritization of potential locations for floodplain reconnection within the meander reach, 2) establishment of baseline conditions (e.g., primary productivity, nutrient concentrations, macroinvertebrate communities/density, zooplankton density, and fish communities) at the prioritized reconnection site, and 3) completion and design of a floodplain reconnection site plan.

Smith Creek was selected as the location having the best reconnection potential, but after policy and landowner decisions rendered that project unavailable we pursued the Ball Creek reconnection site as the next best alternative. Today, the project is utilizing information and data generated from the reconnection feasibility analysis, groundwater monitoring wells, water quality sampling, wetland assessments, and several 1-D and 2-D hydrologic modeling scenarios. These data have shaped our proposed restoration and research direction and continue to inform the development of the RM&E Plan.

Because the Reconnect Project is integrally related to three other projects currently being implemented by the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program, we appreciate the ISRP’s comments regarding the challenges in understanding what distinguishes the Reconnect Project from other tribal projects and how these projects work together. Our goal is to clarify these issues and provide additional information that we hope will elucidate our achievements and our future direction.

We recognize and appreciate the ISRP’s comment that the Reconnect Project has “tremendous potential” to restore fish and wildlife. We share the ISRP’s insight and believe that the project’s history of integrated research has informed all other projects currently being implemented by the Tribe and that the project’s future direction is appropriately aligned with restoring non-regulated hydrologic conditions to the Kootenai River floodplain. We also are pleased that the ISRP shares our vision that the project can demonstrate the restoration and ecosystem benefits of reconnecting the Kootenai River with the historic floodplain.

We believe that by addressing the entire ecosystem and by looking for direct ecosystem impacts attributable to the construction and operation of Libby Dam, the suite of projects undertaken by the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program exemplifies the kind of cross-disciplinary implementation that is required throughout the Columbia Basin.

As we have mentioned, the Reconnect Project is based on the ecosystem conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1. The framework we utilize is derived from the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework illustrated in Table 1. This framework is rooted in the principles of biodiversity conservation and is directly applicable to the Tribe’s conservation and restoration efforts in the Kootenai River Subbasin. The Reconnect Project is working in tandem with the OpLoss Project to assess the viability of the conservation targets. Data collection efforts are focused on indicators that are closely tied to the operation of Libby Dam. The far right column, “End Result,” illustrates that we have designed our work plan to

Table 1.  Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework and the Reconnect Project’s restoration relationship to the OpLoss Project.

include objectives, strategies and actions that either increase viability or abate proximate threats. In addition, we utilized a threats-based conceptual model to identify underlying root causes that ultimately influence the targets and trace the factors affected by a particular strategy. For example, in Figure 2, the strategy “improve ground and surface water management” directly addresses flood control and water management issues resulting from the dikes and Libby Dam. Not coincidentally, this strategy is also aimed at increasing the viability of a number of system attributes, including floodplain connectivity.

Figure 2.  Threats and opportunities diagram for the Reconnect Project.

As briefly described in the Reconnect Project proposal, the OpLoss Project (200201100) has based the Kootenai Subbasin assessment on ecological integrity (or Index for Ecological Integrity– IEI), which refers to the capability of supporting and maintaining “a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981). The ecological integrity concept provides a system-specific framework in which species assemblage data can be ranked on a qualitative scale. This method of estimating condition can be more ecologically relevant than traditional analyses such as species richness and Shannon diversity (Blair 1996, Brooks et al. 1998).

The Kootenai River floodplain IEI is a geomorphic reach or basin-wide assessment that incorporates abiotic and biotic measures. The IEI will incorporate a variety of indices to assess the overall ecological condition of each geomorphic reach in the U.S. portion of the Kootenai River Subbasin (Figure 3). These indices include, an Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA), an Index of Fluvial Alteration (IFA), a Floodplain Index of Fluvial Alteration (Floodplain IFA), an Index of Vegetation Alteration (IVA), a Terrestrial Index of Biological Integrity (T-IBI), an Aquatic Index of Biological Integrity (A-IBI), and an Index of Wetland Alteration (IWA)

Figure 3.  Order of impact schematization (from Jorde et al. 2005).

These parameters will likely be displayed in the pie chart format. In this way, the ecological operational effects can be apportioned to each component. By accounting and displaying the metrics in such a way, the effects that need to be mitigated and restored are displayed clearly. For instance, assuming that dam operations will continue unaltered, the IHA and IFA will not change and therefore reflect a permanent loss. However, through mitigation and restoration actions (i.e., vegetation manipulation), we can track changes in T-IBI score and how the project affects the IEI. With this method, we should be able to apportion effects to the long-term operational loss due to flow regime (irretrievable loss) and the capability for mitigation and restoration improvements (mitigated effects).

Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)

The Index of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) measures the hydrologic changes in the Kootenai River by comparing parameters collected at stream gages before and after the operation of Libby Dam. For this study, a 15-parameter subset of the original 33 IHA metrics was selected to simplify the analysis. The selected parameters represent the 5 core parameter groups reported by the IHA method and eliminate redundant parameters while representing the primary characteristics of the pre- and post-Libby Dam hydrology. The details of the construction and a draft analysis of this index are documented in Burke (2006). Currently, we are re-evaluating the selection of metrics based on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Once we determine the appropriate parameters for incorporation, we will recalculate the IHA for each general geomorphic reach (canyon, braided, meander) and test for difference between reaches. Also, we will quantify the effects of historical dam operation compared to “sturgeon flow” management.

Index of Fluvial (Hydraulic) Alteration (IFA)

The Index of Fluvial (Hydraulic) Alteration (IFA) measures changes in the second order in stream impacts resulting from changed hydrologic conditions due to river regulation. These changes include, but are not limited to, depth, stage fluctuation, velocity, shear stress, and stream power, which can have profound effects on habitat conditions, ecosystem processes and biological communities. This index was developed for the stream channel using a 1-D model. The details of the construction and a draft analysis of this index are documented in Burke (2006). Similar to the IHA, the IFA metrics are being reanalyzed using PCA for final selection. The IFA will be recalculated at the general geomorphic reach scale (canyon, braided, meander) spatial scale and differences between reaches will be tested. Also, we will quantify the effects of historical dam operation compared to “sturgeon flow” management.

Floodplain Index of Fluvial Alteration (Floodplain IFA)

Changing hydrology affects the floodplain. Therefore, a floodplain IFA by geomorphic reach was developed using the outputs of the 2-D model. The details of construction, validation, and implementation of the 2-D model are documented in Benjankar (2009). This index uses shear stress, water depth, flood duration, flood extent, and changes in flood frequency outputs simulated using the 2-D model. This index will be used to quantify the overall impacts to the floodplain, but will also allow for apportioning impacts of dam operation and the levee system on floodplain hydraulics.

Index of Vegetation Alteration (IVA)/Integrity

Post-dam changes in hydrologic and hydraulics affect development and recruitment of vegetative communities within the floodplain. Impacts on woody riparian vegetation (e.g., the riparian cottonwood community) are evident throughout the Kootenai River Subbasin.

An Index of Vegetation Alteration (IVA) is being considered independently of the Terrestrial Index of Biological Integrity (T-IBI) development. Currently, a landcover classification of the 2004 NAIP imagery has been completed and a landcover classification of the 1934 georeferenced aerial photography is in draft form. This component of the IEI is still under review to develop an adequate index. To compare pre-dam and post-dam vegetation communities and structure, several methods are being explored. The methods currently under consideration include 1) comparison between current and historic aerial photographic interpretation, 2) dynamic vegetation simulation model outputs, and 3) development of a vegetation IBI.

Terrestrial Index of Biological Integrity (T-IBI)

The interaction between biotic and abiotic ecosystem components and the ecological processes are responsible for creating and maintaining diversity. These interactions and process are what constitute biological integrity, or an "(eco) system’s wholeness" (Angermeier & Karr 1994). Multi-metric indices integrate multiple biological attributes (called metrics) to describe and evaluate the condition of a place. Metrics are chosen on the basis of whether they reflect specific and predictable responses of organisms to habitat alteration and human activities. The first successful application of the multi-metric concept to biological systems (Index of Biological Integrity, or IBI) occurred in freshwater systems (Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986), and the concept has since been adapted for use in upland environments (e.g., Bradford et al. 1998, Karr and Chu 1997). This method measures biotic integrity using a variety of metrics – trophic level, species richness and abundance of taxa. The index of biotic integrity assesses how closely a local community (e.g., fish) matches that of a reference community with minimal anthropogenic influence – indicating the amount of change that can be attributed to anthropogenic influence. Once an IBI is constructed, it is a tool used to detect and monitor anthropogenic impacts upon biological systems (Karr 1999). This approach can also be useful in indicating the ecological integrity of an ecosystem.

Unlike purely habitat-driven measures, IBI’s are multi-metric measures of the biotic communities supported by the habitat. The metrics used for IBI development vary, but are generally community, assemblage, trophic level, and ecological function-driven. The multi-metric IBI is a more robust measure of the ecological impacts on a site or an area than habitat-driven approaches that assume present habitat is functioning properly and populated by native assemblages. Unlike purely habitat-driven approaches, the multi-metric IBI approach evaluates such habitat-based assumptions by rating similar habitats along a gradient of anthropogenic effects or disturbance, based on the extent of biota and ecological functions present.

Multi-metric IBIs incorporate the responses of birds, fish, and benthic or terrestrial invertebrates to measure biological condition and continue to be successfully used by most states and several federal agencies (Karr and Chu 1999). For example, the advent of multi-metric biological evaluations stimulated a fundamental change in the way water resources are evaluated under the Clean Water Act.

Birds and invertebrates are closely tied to specific habitats. These close associations contribute to the value of these biotic assemblages as good indicators of ecological health. In addition, biotic components provide numerous ecological services or functions to the system. These functions vary from ecologically-based services (i.e., nutrient recycling, seed dispersal, pest control, etc.) to anthropogenic values (i.e., bird watching, fly fishing, etc.). The presence, availability, distribution, and other aspects of these taxa can indicate the relative biological integrity of the area in question.

Sampling occurred at 158 random locations within the 500-year historic floodplain. At each sampling location, vegetation, avian, and invertebrate data were collected within 50m of the random point location.

We developed an objective methodology to consistently rate the anthropogenic impacts to the sampling locations. To assess site condition (site score) or conversely, the level of anthropogenic impacts, we calculated two site scores; one based on changes in hydraulic variables, and the other on vegetation communities variables. The hydraulic variables used to assess site conditions were average shear stress, water depth, and flood duration. To assess site conditions using vegetation, the following variables were used: 1) relative canopy cover of riparian associated tree species to cover of all tree species, 2) relative canopy cover of riparian shrub species to cover of all shrub species, 3) canopy cover of reed canarygrass, 4) canopy cover of noxious weeds, 5) number of structural layers, and 6) the average of all vegetation variables. Due to the vegetation heterogeneity of the randomly selected sites, vegetation data were calculated and scored by land cover class. The vegetation site score is the weighted average (based on proportion of land cover class) of all land cover class scores within the 50m radius.

Once the site scores were calculated, we tested many avian and invertebrate metrics for correlation with site scores using univariate statistical methods. The univariate approach yielded only weak associations between site score variables and terrestrial community metrics. When we investigated the avian metrics using multivariate procedures (Figure 4) to combine site scoring variables and select appropriate metrics.

 Figure 4.  The traditional and enhanced flow charts for IBI construction.

Using the above procedures, we were able to combine vegetation and hydraulic variables in a multivariate setting. Then, we used a multivariate analysis to select metrics to use in the IBI construction. The resulting variables and metrics are shown in Figure 5. Using the following metrics in an IBI, we experience a good agreement between IBI score and site score (Figure 6).

Figure 5.  Final integrated Avian IBI model.

Figure 6.  The correlation of Avian IBI values with the canonical site scores.

Terrestrial Invertebrate IBI (I-IBI)

This index is currently under development and will follow the procedures discussed above for the avian IBI.

Aquatic Index of Biological Integrity(A-IBI)

Two Aquatic Indices of Biological Integrity (A-IBI’s) will be calculated using macroinvertebrate data collected by the Nutrient Project (199404900) and fish data collected under Project 199806500. The River Macroinvertebrate Indices (RMI) (Royer et al. 2001) and River Fish Indices (RFI) (Mebane et al. 2003) are presently the methods being considered by the OpLoss Project. The RMI uses EPT richness (i.e., EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera Trichoptera; macro-invertebrate indices used to relate species richness), total taxa richness, percent dominant taxon, percent Elmidae, and 5) percent predators to assess biological integrity based on macroinvertebrates. The RFI uses percent cold water individuals, number of coldwater native species, number of cold water native species expressed as percentage of these species, number of non-indigenous species, and percentage of tolerant individuals to assess biological integrity based on fish communities.

Index of Wetland Alteration (IWA)

Construction and operation of Libby Dam, by design, limits downstream flooding episodes. Under a natural regime, these flooding events produced and recharged wetlands in the floodplain. Using a one-dimensional (MIKE 11) and a two-dimensional (MIKE21) hydrodynamic model, losses of wetland areas and volume were estimated in dry, average, and wet hydrologic years.

Currently, we are in the review process of creating an Index of Wetland Alteration (IWA). Since wetlands provide numerous terrestrial and aquatic functions, we need to ensure that these impacts are incorporated in the IEI.

The following is a list of the metrics that will be utilized to determine the degree of change in wetland function over time. These metrics are different from the other IBI indices as the values for each individual metric are generated from the wetland functional assessment worksheet as opposed to being directly measured in the field. The wetland functional assessment worksheet uses a wide variety of different inputs to generate function and value scores. Instead of utilizing a more detailed and time exhaustive method of in the field data collection, values for the metrics below will be populated through completion of the wetland functional assessment. Each individual metric and a brief explanation o the variables that are evaluated when generating each metric score are listed below.

• Water Storage & Delay (WS) – This metric looks at topography, flood frequency, flood depth, and position in the landscape
• Sediment Retention & Stabilization (SR) – This metric evaluates flood durations, depths, topography and vegetation classes
• Phosphorus Retention (PR) - This metric evaluates flood durations, depths, vegetation removal, leaf litter, topography, presence of ice, and vegetation classes
• Nitrate Removal & Retention (NR) - This metric is computed using many of the same variables as phosphorous retention
• Thermoregulation (T) – extent of surface water, depth, sheltering vegetation, groundwater inputs/outputs
• Carbon Sequestration (CS) – vegetation classes, woody debris presence, % of persistent surface water
• Organic Matter Export (OE) – vegetation classes, topography, flooding regimes
• Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat (INV) – surface water presence, depth, presence of ice, vegetation
• Fish Habitat (FH) - surface water presence, water connectivity, depth classes, flow through complexity, vegetation, LWD, altered water regime
• Amphibian & Reptile Habitat (AM) – water presence, depth, groundwater,  vegetation, LWD, surrounding land cover
• Waterbird Feeding Habitat (WBF) – seasonal open water extent, depths, vegetation, fish access, surrounding wetland diversity
• Waterbird Nesting Habitat (WBN) - seasonal open water extent, depths, vegetation, fish access, surrounding wetland diversity
• Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat (SBM) – vegetation, LWD, surrounding vegetation characteristics, seasonal water
• Native Plant Diversity (PD) – presence of low marsh, tidal influences, hydroperiod, herbaceous vs woody vegetation, invasive species, topography

Comment:      “As a general comment, substantial data has been collected for this project already, but little predictive understanding seems to be emerging. Basically the group is drowning in unassessed data without fully using it to generate knowledge. More emphasis should be placed on generating syntheses from these data. Application of predictive models and rigorous use of testable hypotheses/relationships in developing syntheses will help generate information useful for informing managers and guiding future RME efforts.”…“There was no indication that data previously collected has been synthesized to any appreciable extent or used in a formal manner, statistical or otherwise, to guide development of project activities.”

Response:

As stated in the previous comment, the Reconnect Project has been involved in the application of predictive models and rigorous use of testable hypotheses/relationships. The Tribal Wildlife Department has designed a strong interrelationship between the OpLoss Project and the Reconnect Project. That interrelationship carries over to Reconnect Project feasibility assessment tools developed by the OpLoss Project, where larger amounts of data have been collected. The below list represent the Oploss Project data and models that form the foundation of the Reconnect Project feasibility studies restore floodplain and river connectivity. Following the combined effort in the synthesis, the Reconnect Project utilized these data and models to guide the selection of reconnection sites, assess historic conditions, create hydrologic and hydraulic tools, and develop monitoring processes.

Assessment Data and Models

1.       OpLoss Conceptual Design Development

1.1.       Compiled interviews with Tribal elders on historic conditions and uses.

1.2.       Assisted in the development of a citizen driven natural resource group (KVRI) and WRCS (KTOI 2005) to create a comprehensive approach in focusing on resource issues.

1.3.       Developed and assembled a Research Design and Review Team (RDRT) which directed selection of research projects and analogue sites, criteria for research development, and adaptive management techniques appropriate for both the Kootenai River Watershed and the region.

1.4.       Coordinated and organized the RDRT meetings and its integration with the International Kootenay River Ecosystem Rehabilitation Team (IKERT) related to Project #199404900.

1.5.       Developed a RDRT framework (Kootenai River Action Plan, IEI components) for a regionally applicable assessment of operations-based ecosystem losses for the Kootenai River floodplain.

1.6.       Coordinated the RDRT assessment of Kootenai River Action Plan and IEI components for the selection of methodologies that will best assess ecosystem level operational losses in the Kootenai River floodplain.

1.7.       Integrated with other BPA funded projects (200200800, 200200200, 199404900, 198806500)

1.7.1.        Coordination, integration, data sharing, monitoring, and research between projects is on-going

1.8.       Designed a conceptual model framework for assessment of operations-based ecosystem losses

1.9.       Initiated development of hydrologic, hydraulic, floodplain, wetland, and biotic community research aimed at quantifying ecological impacts due to river regulation.

2.       Hydrology/Hydraulic

2.1.       Historical Conditions

2.1.1.        Assessed historical (pre-1900’s) and current condition, and relevant literature review for floodplain wetlands, tributaries, back-water sloughs, pocket water within the Kootenai River watershed and compiled related functional operational impact assessment techniques

2.1.2.        Located, assembled, and digitized historic topography and wetlands based on 1928 maps

2.1.3.        Located and collated data for 13 mainstem and 20 tributary stream gage from approximately 1910 – present (data availability varies based on the gage)

2.1.4.        Assembled and georectified USGS data and locations for 350 cross sections between 1928-present

2.2.       Constructed 1-D model

2.2.1.        Analyzed stream gages data

2.2.2.        Georectified cross section data

2.2.3.        Supplemented cross section data by adding XX cross sections

2.2.4.        Constructed model for historic (pre 1938), pre-dam (1939-1967), and contemporary (1974-present)

2.3.       Constructed and refine the Index of Hydrologic (IHA) and the Index of Fluvial Alteration (IFA)

2.3.1.        Selected metrics to compare across time periods

2.3.2.        Compared changes in metrics from historic to pre-dam

2.3.3.        Compared changes in metrics from historic to contemporary

2.3.4.        Developed “pie-chart” display of metrics

2.3.5.        Refined metric selection with use of PCA

2.4.       Develop, link, and analyze 1-D river and riparian/floodplain models (i.e., riparian woody recruitment)

2.4.1.        Analyzed sediment transport in the braided reach

2.4.2.        Modeled areas that could support recruitment in the historic and contemporary periods at a selected location in the braided reach

2.4.3.        Compared the amount of area

2.5.       Develop 2-D model

2.5.1.        Collected LiDAR data (1 ft. resolution topography) for the braided and meander reach floodplain for contemporary and pre-dam topography

2.5.2.        Digitized historic topography based on 1928 elevation map

2.5.3.        Constructed model for historic (pre 1938), pre-dam (1939-1967), and contemporary (1974-present)

2.6.       Implement 2-D model

2.6.1.        Constructed a vegetation succession/regression module for each geomorphic reach to simulate vegetation development in the floodplain based solely on hydraulic physical processes

2.6.2.        Simulated floodplain inundation area under varying climatic conditions (wet, average, dry)

2.6.3.        Assessed effects of Libby Dam, Corra Linn Dam, and the levee system to floodplain inundation in varying climatic conditions

2.6.4.        Developed an Index of Floodplain Fluvial Alteration (IFFA)

2.6.5.        Assessed hydraulic floodplain site score for use in the construction of the Terrestrial Index of Biological Integrity (T-IBI).

2.6.6.        Simulated dike breaches for an example of the use of the 2-D model

3.       Terrestrial Communities

3.1.       Avian

3.1.1.        Established 168 avian/invertebrate sampling locations within the 500-year floodplain. 

3.1.2.        Documented sample site locations using GPS, photo location, and site directions and description

3.1.3.        Conducted 10-minute point counts on 168 avian locations annually through 2009.

3.1.4.        Reduced point counts down to 90 avian locations to maintain long-term data stream

3.1.4.1.         Currently, the dataset contains approximately 44,000 avian observations

3.1.5.        Used 2007-2009 avian data for construction of the Avian IBI model

3.1.6.        Validated the Avian IBI model with 2006 and 2010 avian data

3.2.       Invertebrates

3.2.1.        Conducted invertebrate sampling at approximately 70 of the 168 sites annually.

3.2.2.        Identified all invertebrate specimens to family.

3.2.2.1.        Currently, the dataset contains approximately 44,000 invertebrate observations

3.2.2.2.        Published 4 notes on range extensions of invertebrate species

3.2.3.        Developed an Invertebrate IBI – in process.

3.3.       Vegetation:

3.3.1.        Developed a fine scale land cover classification for the 500 year floodplain based on true color and color infrared 2005 NAIP imagery (1-m resolution)

3.3.2.        Collected fine scale vegetation data within the 50m radius of each avian sampling location.

3.3.2.1.        Developed a site scoring methodology to quantify vegetation impacts at each sampling location for development of the terrestrial IBIs.

3.3.3.        Developed an Index of Vegetation Alteration (IVA) – in progress

3.3.3.1.       Assembled and georectified historical aerial photographs (1934, 1947, 1958)

3.3.3.2.       Produced a draft land cover classification based on the 1934 aerial photography

3.3.3.3.       Assessed and rate the changes observed between 1934 and 2004, acknowledging that not all changes are due to hydrologic alteration.

3.3.3.4.       Applied hydrodynamic based vegetation model to understand changes based on hydrology.

3.4.        Wetlands

3.4.1.        Water Storage & Delay (WS)

3.4.2.        Sediment Retention & Stabilization (SR)

3.4.3.        Phosphorus Retention (PR)

3.4.4.        Nitrate Removal & Retention (NR)

3.4.5.        Thermoregulation (T)

3.4.6.        Carbon Sequestration (CS)

3.4.7.        Organic Matter Export (OE)

3.4.8.        Aquatic Invertebrate Habitat (INV)

3.4.9.        Fish Habitat (FH)

3.4.10.    Amphibian & Reptile Habitat (AM)

3.4.11.    Waterbird Feeding Habitat (WBF)

3.4.12.    Waterbird Nesting Habitat (WBN)

3.4.13.    Songbird, Raptor, & Mammal Habitat (SBM)

3.4.14.    Native Plant Diversity (PD)

4.       Aquatic Communities

4.1.       Developed Macroinvertebrate IBI

4.1.1.        Conducted literature review to determine appropriate methods

4.1.2.        Acquired macroinvertebrate data from Project 199404900.

4.1.3.        Restructured data to conform to RMI

4.1.4.        Calculated metrics

4.1.5.        Calculated RMI for the Kootenai River

4.2.       Developed Macroinvertebrate IBI

4.2.1.        Conducted literature review to determine appropriate methods

4.2.2.        Acquired fish data from Project 199806500

4.2.3.        Restructured data to conform to RFI

4.2.4.        Calculated metrics

4.2.5.        Calculated RFI for the Kootenai River

Peer Review Papers

Benjankar, R, G. Egger, K. Jorde, P. Goodwin and N.F. Glenn.  2011.  Dynamic floodplain vegetation model development for the Kootenai River, USA.  Journal of Environmental Management 92: 3058-3070.

Benjankar, R, N.F. Glenn, G. Egger, K. Jorde, and P. Goodwin.  2010.  Comparison of Field-Observed and Simulated Map Output from a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques.  GIScience & Remote Sensing, 2010, 47, No. 4, p. 480–497.

Benjankar, R. E. Yager, K. Jorde, and G.Egger.  2009.  Simulation of different scenarios to reconnect a historic floodplain with the channel of the Kootenai River, USA.  33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment: 4123-4129.

Braatne, J.H., Rood, S.B., and Heilman, P.E. 1996. Life history, ecology, and conservation of riparian cottonwoods in North America. In Biology of Populus and its implications for management and conservation. Part I, Chapter 3. Edited by R.R. Stettler, H.D. Bradshaw, Jr., P.E. Heilman, and T.M. Hinckley. NRC Research Press, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Pp. 57-85.

Burke, M, K. Jorde, J.M.Buffington.  2008.  Application of a hierarchical framework for assessing environmental impacts of dam operation: Changes in streamflow, bed mobility and recruitment of riparian trees in a western North American river.  Journal of Environmental Management

Hatten, T.D, N. Merz, C. Looney.  2011.  Synuclus impunctatus (Say) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Idaho, U.S.A.: New State Record.  The Coleopterists Bulletin 65(3): 325-326

Hatten, T.D., N.Merz, J.B. Johnson, C. Looney, T. Ulrich, S. Soults, R. Capilo, D. Bergeron, P. Anders, P. Tanimoto, B. Shafii.  2010.  Note on occurrence of Mymaromella pala huber and gibson (Hymenoptera: Mymarommatidae) in montana: a new state record.  Western North American Naturalist 70(4): 567-569.

Hatten, T.D., R. Sprague 4th, F. M. Merickel, C. Looney, N.Merz, S. Soults, R. Capilo, D. Bergeron, P. Anders, P. Tanimoto, and B. Shafii.  2009.  Carabus granulatus Linnaeus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Idaho: New state record.  The Coleopterists Bulletin 63(4): 412

Conferences

Benjankar, R and E. Yager.  2009.  The impacts of sediment supply, flow hydrology, and channel restoration on floodplain sedimentation.  AGU 2009 Fall Meeting. 

Benjankar, R. 2009. Development of a dynamic floodplain vegetation model for the Kootenai River, USA: concept and methodology. In: Science and Information Technologies for Sustainable Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. Concepcion, Chile.

Benjankar, R., G. Egger, and K. Jorde. 2009. Development of a Dynamic Floodplain Vegetation Model for the Kootenai River, USA: Concept and Methodology. in The 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, 12-16 January, Concepción, Chile.

Benjankar, R., G. Egger, Y. Xie, and K. Jorde. 2007. Reservoir operations and ecosystem losses: Concept and application of a dynamic floodplain vegetation model at the Kootenai River, USA. Pages 1-4 in 6th International symposium on ecohydraulics: Bridging the gap between hydraulics and biology, Christchurch, New Zealand

Egger, G., R. Benjankar, L. Davis, and K. Jorde. 2007a. Simulated effects of dam operation and water diversion on riparian vegetation of the lower Boise River, Idaho, USA. Pages 1-14. in S. Lanzoni, editor. Harmonizing the Demands of Art and Nature in Hydraulics, 32nd Congress of IAHR, Venice, Italy.

Jorde, K., M. Burke, N. Scheidt, C. Welcker, C. Borden, S. King, R. Benjankar, J. McFall, and D. Caamano. 2005. Reservoir Operations and Ecosystem losses. 6th Gravel Bed River Conference, St. Jakob, Austria.

Dissertations:

Benjankar, R. 2009. Quantification of reservoir operation-based losses to floodplain physical processes and impact on the floodplain vegetation at the Kootenai River, USA. Ph.D. University of Idaho, Boise, ID.

Burke, M. 2006. Linking hydropower operation to modified fluvial processes downstream of Libby Dam, Kootenai River, U.S.A. and Canada. MS Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Dibrani, Berhon. 2003. Simulation of Flood Induced Removal of Alluvial Fans from Tributaries of the Kootenai River. Universität Stuttgart and University of Idaho

Reports:

Egger, G., A. Exner, J. Hassler, and S. Aigner. 2007b. Riparian vegetation of the lower Kootenai River and of comparable natural reference sites. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Fish and Wildlife Department, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805.

Egger, G., and A. Jenderedjian. 2009. Analysis of the ecological deficits and the change of processes of the contemporary situation at the lower Kootenai River (Unpublished report). Umweltbuero Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria.

Jamieson B. and J. B. Braatne. 2001. Riparian cottonwood ecosystems and regulated flows in Kootenai and Yakima sub-basins: Volume I Kootenai River. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 200006800. 118 pp.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI).  2005. Kootenai River Valley Wetlands and Riparian Conservation Strategy – Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Department Bonners Ferry ID

Merz, N., S. Soults, P. Anders, R. Benjankar, M. Burke, D. Bergeron, G. Egger, K. Gill, T. Hatten, S. Rood, B. Shafii, P. Tanimoto, A. Wood, E. Yager. 2011.  Annual Report BPA Project 2002-011-00 Contract Number 50164 Contract Period: 1 November 2009 – 31 October 2010.  2010 Annual Report.  Bonneville Power Administration.

BPA Funding Proposals:

Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation project.  2006.  Project proposal request for FY 2007- FY 2009.

Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation project.  2009.  Project proposal request for FY 2010 – FY 2013

Reconnect Kootenai River with the historic floodplain.  2006.  Project proposal request for FY 2007 – FY 2009.

Category B:     Specify the RM&E and adaptive management plans in sufficient detail for ISRP review.

Comment:      “RME and adaptive management components of the plan are incompletely described.”

Response:

We concur with the ISRP’s comment that “RM&E and adaptive management are critical components of any restoration effort.” The ISRP further commented that “….a complete technical review of this project would require that these two plans be included with the proposal.” We also appreciate the ISRP’s comment that it did not have sufficient detail regarding the RM&E and adaptive management plans associated with the Reconnect Project. Due to our oversight, we neglected to upload the RM&E Plan during the proposal submittal process. The document is now available in our online library and can be accessed via the following link: Draft Ball Creek Stream Restoration RM&E Plan (November 2011). This plan should provide answers raised by the ISRP regarding data synthesis and project effectiveness. The Draft Kootenai Subbasin Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) (October 2011) is also available for viewing in our online library. We did not provide the AMP during the proposal submittal process because it is incomplete and still requires substantial coordination, development and review.

Comment:      “The project appears to have some form of an adaptive learning process but the proposal does not clearly describe the structure of this process. Is there an effective mechanism for transferring RME information to decision makers? Is there a formal process for using this information to make project management decisions? How are decisions made and who makes them?”

Response:

Both the OpLoss and the Reconnect Project have an adaptive learning process that is addressed both by the October 2011 Draft Kootenai Subbasin Adaptive Management Plan and the Draft Ball Creek Stream Restoration RM&E Plan (November 2011). The intent of the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program (Program) is to assemble a Core Adaptive Management Team (Core Team), comprised of technical experts from a variety of agencies, whose primary functions are 1) to review new information, data and analyses generated by all Tribal wildlife project, including both the OpLoss and the Reconnect Project; and 2) to develop informed monitoring and adaptive management recommendations. Depending on the circumstances (e.g., if significant changes in design are warranted, if there are questions or irresolvable differences, or if there are other confounding factors associated with developing a specific recommendation), recommendations and requests for additional input may be forwarded to the Research Design and Review Team (200201100) and/or Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project Policy Team (200200200) before moving to develop and implement revised designs.

The structure of the adaptive learning process for the Tribal Wildlife Department is illustrated in Figure 7. Various Kootenai River ecosystem components are being assessed by the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program. The results of the assessments will indicate whether or not those components need to be restored. Monitoring measures will 1) determine whether our restoration actions are working, 2) demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies, 3) allow us to track threats and provide early warning if things change, and 4) link our work with other projects to describe the conservation outlook of the Kootenai River ecosystem.

 Figure 7.  Tribal Wildlife Department adaptive management process.

Kootenai Tribe’s Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan

In a number of the ISRP responses to the Tribe’s projects, the ISRP requested information regarding the draft Kootenai Subbasin Adaptive Management Plan being developed by the Tribe and requested that the draft document be provided. The Tribe has loaded the working draft document onto the Tribe’s web site at http://www.restoringthekootenai.org/.

We were reluctant to provide the document at this time because this is a working document that is only partially complete and substantial additional coordination and development of the document and associated processes still need to occur. This adaptive management plan is not a requirement of the NPCC program nor is it specifically required as a component of any of the Tribe’s projects. This is an initiative that the Tribe has undertaken of its own volition in order to better manage our overall Fish and Wildlife Program.

The purpose of the Kootenai Subbasin Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) is to link each of the projects within the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program via a subbasin framework in order to better understand and adaptively manage how those projects collectively contribute to ecosystem restoration. Once completed, the AMP is intended to be a living document that will be refined and updated over time as new information becomes available, as results of previous restoration actions are realized, and as the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program continues to mature.

The AMP is intended to provide a framework to formally integrate the Tribe’s various programs and projects. However, it is important to understand that it is not intended to replace or supersede the specific, detailed monitoring and evaluation or adaptive management components of the individual projects that make up the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

The geographic scope of the AMP includes the entire Kootenai Subbasin as measured from ridge top to ridge top. Because it is designed to support all of the Tribe’s projects, and because the Tribe has no authority to manage other agencies’ projects or programs, the administrative scope of the AMP is limited to the KTOI projects. However, in recognition of the size and geographic extent of the Kootenai Subbasin, and cooperative efforts to manage fish and wildlife resources, data and analysis developed by other agencies will also be used to provide critical supplementary information in support of this adaptive management plan.

The Tribe initially explored development of a program-scale adaptive management plan in 2004. At that time the Tribe hosted a multi-agency adaptive management workshop designed to collect input from scientific experts and management stakeholders on development of a subbasin scale adaptive management plan. Topics addressed in this workshop included: 1) identification of particular management options that have potential for restoring key functions in the Kootenai River ecosystem, and important attributes of these options, 2) evaluation of alternative plans for applying combinations of these options over the next few decades, and 3) review of key needs for improvement of monitoring programs in order to insure timely detection of intended immediate effects of each option as well as possible longer-term side effects. The results of this workshop were recorded in 2005 in the document, Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan (Walters, Korman, Anders, Holderman, & Ireland 2005). For a variety of reasons, primarily related to work load on other projects, this effort was temporarily shelved. This initial document provided a general framework that helped guide the evolution of projects over time, particularly with respect to common ecosystem stressors and responses addressed by multiple projects.

In 2010, with the completion of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program and the general shift in emphasis of the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program from assessment and evaluation to feasibility assessment and implementation, the Tribe reinitiated efforts to develop a subbasin-scale adaptive management plan in November 2010. This effort has moved along in a start and stop fashion (interrupted by other program work, development of project proposals, etc.) and is currently on hold to be reinitiated in Spring 2012.

In the last review of the AMP, the Tribal team identified a number of missing items and areas of concern in the current draft document. Future work sessions will occur in Spring through Fall of 2012 to: 1) identify and confirm program goals and objectives; 2) refine and finalize the list of metrics used in the program; 3) review and confirm protocols for data storage, confirm methods for data entry, validation, sharing and retrieval; 4) confirm details for coordination with critical non-Tribal entities (e.g., IDFG, BCMFLNRO, MFWP); and 5) develop the agenda and work plan for a Fall 2012 meeting to review data from the 2012 field season and develop an initial set of adaptive management recommendations. The results of this first meeting will be compiled and added to the current draft of the document. A final review draft of the AMP will be distributed prior to the Adaptive Management Team meeting in Fall 2012. At that meeting we will use the document as a guide for decision-making, and note any additional content that needs to be added so the document is an effective tool for guiding the adaptive management decision-making process. In addition, the Tribe is in the process of identifying a team of external experts to assist in the review and refinement of the current draft AMP. Completion of the final document is scheduled for January 31, 2013.

We hope the ISRP will recognize that this is a partial draft document and still very much a work in progress. Toward this end, suggestions to improve the overall framework and content would be appreciated and will be incorporated into our future efforts to the extent possible.

The AMP is intended to be a framework with which to integrate the Tribe’s programs and projects. It is not intended, however, to replace or supersede the specific monitoring and evaluation or adaptive management components of the OpLoss Project, which provides the framework that directs the Reconnect Project and the Ball Creek Stream Restoration RM&E Plan (e.g., provides a feedback loop to the OpLoss adaptive management/monitoring process), or any of the other individual projects that make up the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

Link between Tribal Wildlife Departmental Processes Fish and Wildlife Program AMP

As a point of clarification, the AMP is under development, where the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program is cross-walking specific Tribal Wildlife Department project adaptive management components (i.e., OpLoss, Reconnect and Albeni Falls Projects) to better inform the larger ecosystem adaptive management structure (i.e., AMP). As an example, the OpLoss Project addresses the Tribal Wildlife Department’s responsibility of demonstrating the effectiveness of the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program to solve uncertainties and guide decision making. As individual restoration actions (i.e., Reconnect Project) achieve the expected results, it embraces the Wildlife Department adaptive management processes by clarifying uncertainties as it provides guidance on how to better implement the larger Fish and Wildlife Program activities, which is the purpose of the AMP.

Comment:      “There is a lack of detail on the RME effort that will evaluate project effectiveness.”

Response:

We could not agree more with this comment by the ISRP as we neglected to upload the Draft Ball Creek Stream Restoration RM&E Plan (November 2011)with the Reconnect project proposal. However, now that the document is available in our online library we are confident that the Plan will provide the ISRP with sufficient details as to how project effectiveness will be monitored and evaluated. We respectfully remind the ISRP that while this document is a draft RM&E Plan created prior to implementation of the Ball Creek Stream Restoration Project, we welcome the ISRP’s feedback and input in guiding further conceptual development of the Plan. We know that our indicators can show success. While we continue to refine the RM&E process, our intention is to be able to demonstrate whether 1) our restoration actions are having their intended impact, 2) our strategies are working, 3) threats are declining, and ecosystem components are improving (or remaining stable).

Comment:      “Only a very general description of the monitoring goals, design, and protocols is provided in the proposal.”

Response:

The monitoring goals and design are described in Category A and addressed briefly in the above AMP description. The ISRP is correct in stating that only a general description of monitoring protocols was provided in the proposal. Due to our oversight during the project submittal process, we neglected to upload the Draft Ball Creek Stream Restoration RM&E Plan (November 2011) which provides much of this information. In addition, we would refer the ISRP to the MonitoringMethods.org website for detailed information on monitoring protocols developed for the Reconnect Project.

The principal protocols addressed in the MonitoringMethods.org website were a combination of aquatic sampling methods for the Reconnect Project and OpLoss Project sampling methods, where the OpLoss Project sampling methods were reviewed in the 2010 Wildlife Project Review process. The aquatic sampling methods used by the Reconnect Project were a result of collaboration of scientists from both the Reconnect Project and the Nutrient Project (199404900). As a result, our sampling strategy followed similar parameters and methods, and for data coordination purposes, we collected data where sample methods and techniques were as uniform as possible. Lastly, we understood that this website was to be used for tracking information about our RM&E methods and protocols. We look forward to a more complete review of our monitoring and evaluation techniques, statistical rigor and compatibility with other tribal projects.

Comment:      “There was inadequate discussion of data management in the proposal. Data management and retention protocols are critical for an RME effort, especially for large projects like those planned for the Kootenai River and its floodplain.”

Response:

Data Management

As stated in the Reconnect Project proposal, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish and Wildlife Monitoring Database (KTOI Database) was established in 2003 as a means of managing monitoring data collected through the Ecosystem Restoration Project (also known as the Nutrient Project) (199806500). The OpLoss (200201100) and Reconnect (200200800) project data were later incorporated. The KTOI Database currently houses data pertaining to water quality and discharge levels, macroinvertebrate and algae, and the status of numerous bird and fish species. Monitoring data is searchable by several attributes, including monitoring site, collection date, species, and monitoring metrics. Data can be viewed on a case-by-case basis for individual queries, or summarized in tabular or graphical form for a designated timeframe.

The KTOI Fish and Wildlife Relational Database is housed with Statistical Consulting Services (SCS) and consists of two data sets, including the Nutrient Project (199806500) database and the Reconnect Project (200200800) database. The largest portion of data pertains to the Nutrient Project database (2003), which includes data collected between 2001 and 2010, and is designed around separate trophic level data components, including algae, macroinvertebrates, fish, and water quality parameters. The smallest portion of the database is the Reconnect Project data, which was initially housed in the GeoEngineers database. As of 2008, all the data in the Reconnect Project database were moved to a different platform and server to facilitate data sharing between the OpLoss Project (200201100), the Reconnect Project (200200800) and the Nutrient Project (199806500). The Reconnect Project data are separated spatially and designed to complement datasets from both the OpLoss and the Nutrient Project.

As of 2011, all the data in the OpLoss Project database were moved to a different platform and server to facilitate data sharing between the OpLoss Project (200201100), the Reconnect Project (200200800) and the Nutrient Project (199806500). Additionally, the OpLoss Project database allows real time data entry and access through any standard web browser. The data entry form uses data validation protocols to limit data entry errors and marks all entries as provisional until the project manager reviews and marks them as final. Currently, the avian data from 2002 to 2011 (approximately 44,000 records) are available along with site-related information and vegetation data (168 records). Invertebrate data uploads are pending. In the interim, the 2005-2009 invertebrate data are available through the project manager. All data in the OpLoss Project and the Habitat Restoration Project (200200200) databases are available for use by other KTOI projects, including the Reconnect Project.

Technical Specs and Data Tools

Technical Specifications - The KTOI database is housed on a dedicated Intel 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 computer operated by CI Host of Dallas, Texas. This computer is available 24 hrs per day, 365 days per year. Web services on the computer are provided by Apache Web Server software (ver. 2.2.9) running on Debian Linux (ver. 2.6.26). The relational database was constructed using MySQL database software (ver. 5.0.51) and can be accessed via a web-based interface programmed in the PHP programming language (ver. 5.2.6) and HTML 4.0.

The OpLoss Project database is a dedicated computer system, hosted by CI Host, was acquired to house the database. An initial web page was subsequently constructed and customized as per specific requirements of KTOI project and program managers. Bio-monitoring trophic level data generated by the Reconnect Project were formatted, collated, and uploaded into the designated components of the relational database, as they became available. Exploratory summary and graphical routines were subsequently implemented for each of the specified components. Based on the need and available funding, more sophisticated options were incorporated, including data censoring, multi-year-trophic level plotting displays, dynamic maps, etc. The KTOI fish and wildlife database, including user profiles and security, has been operational since March 2004.

In addition, the OpLoss database is housed on a Virtual Xeon Xserve with a 2.8 gHz Xeon processor operated by Point In Space Internet Solutions in Raleigh, North Carolina. The system is available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Web services on the computer are provided by Apache Web Server software (version 2) running on OS X Server version 10.6. The database was constructed using MySQL database software (version 5.1) and can be accessed via a web-based interface programmed in the Lasso programming language (version 8.6.1).

Web pages to support data management for OpLoss data were created to include an interface for data entry that includes data validation routines and data review screens that allow the project manager to review, edit, and finalize data. Data can be queried and downloaded by the project manager to allow for export and manipulation of the data using other non-web based software programs such as Excel or statistical analysis software. The database has been operational since 2011. The data management system is designed to be expandable to include data from other KTOI fish and wildlife programs.

Accessibility

The general public does not have access to the KTOI database. The status of access by other managers is variable and is determined by the appropriate KTOI project manager. Currently, these data are not housed in any additional regional database. Data are protected through user access restrictions, by implementing user profiles and password protected security. This accessibility can be set to any combination of read/write/edit abilities ranging from an administrator role with full access to all data, to a highly restricted public access capability limited to general project information. The KTOI database may be accessed at: http://ktoi.scsnetw.com/. However, only authorized users are granted access to the system. To access data, please contact the appropriate project manager directly.

Data Management and Retention Protocols

In order to assess the ability to support the AMP and individual tribal projects, the existing OpLoss Project data management system is currently being examined and modified to accommodate data that evaluates a broader range of projects and associated metrics. Data tables are structured to avoid redundant data and to ensure consistent data formats among sampling events. Over the next year and beyond, the adaptive management team will work together as the information system grows to develop consistent data naming conventions, table structures, and other coordination items that will facilitate data integration, collection, transmission, sharing, and analysis.

The OpLoss Project continues to investigate whether the current data management system can be a useful tool for adaptive management, and it is web-based and includes an interface to enter or import new data into the system quickly in formats that are compatible and comparable with existing data. In addition, it includes an interface to allow query and export of data for immediate analysis using spreadsheet or statistical analysis tools. Data can be shared among tribal project managers and agency partners through this same web-based portal, and users can be granted access to different parts of the information system depending on their needs. In the future, data will be linked to support spatial analysis and map integration. Characteristics of the adaptive management data system include:

• Standard templates for data collection and data entry or import into the system;
• Automated integration of new data sets, including error checking and data validation rules;
• Built-in analysis functions to allow calculation of metrics based on raw data;
• Flexible query tools so the data management system can be used as a decision support tool;
• Database to store lessons learned from previous restoration projects that can be applied to future restoration design phases; and
• Managed levels of access so different functions are available to design team members, managers, interdisciplinary adaptive management and monitoring team members, other co-managers and potentially members of the public.

Currently, the Reconnect Project data within the KTOI Database houses six trophic level components, including:

• Water data:
  •  Laboratory water quality and nutrient measurements
  •  Field physical measurements
• Periphyton data classified to species taxonomic level
• Phytoplankton classified to the species taxonomic level
• Zooplankton classified to the species taxonomic level
• Invertebrate data:
  •  Species-level taxonomic data with corresponding abundance values
  •  Thirty-six community diversity metrics, including measures of ecologically important taxonomic groups such as EPT, chironomidae, diptera, etc.
• Individual fish abundance and size measurements classified to the species taxonomic level

These data are maintained, warehoused, and routinely archived on a central computer server (http://ktoi.scsnetw.com/) alongside other Kootenai River projects, including 10-11 years of data from the KTOI Database. Each of these projects has a customized set of internet accessible data functionalities which allow for quick access and exploration of project data. As the Reconnect Project data parameters are consistent with these other projects, we anticipate that similar functionalities will be provided for the Reconnect data. Such interactive functionality will include list, sort and search capabilities on raw data, user-specified censoring or filtering of raw data, tabular summary procedures, and numerous graphical display options such as scatter plots, line trend plots, and bar and pie charts. In addition, integration of project data and summary information with high resolution satellite imagery/maps is possible. All summary, plotting and mapping routines can be customized to specified trophic level and project needs. Integration and cross tabulation of trophic level responses within the project is also possible within the restraints of data availability and observation alignment. While sampling schemes and available data vary between projects, integration of data responses across projects may be possible for selected responses.

Comment:      “There also is a concern about the data management being off-site, but perhaps that will be appropriate over the longer term as data management becomes increasingly complex. The ISRP hopes this issue will be thoroughly addressed in the subbasin adaptive management plan.”

Response:

Currently, the OpLoss Project data are stored off-site, but local copies of the data are stored on-site in the form of original data collection forms, back-ups, and for analysis purposes. The OpLoss data are located in an off-site, cloud-based database which functions as a master copy of the complete data set and can be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection. Because the database is not locally housed and interaction is only allowed through a controlled interface with built-in rules for validation, the data are protected from human error that may arise from direct interaction with the MySQL tables. Since any portion of the database can be exported and downloaded at any time, the off-site location does not limit the ability to access and analyze the data. Rather, because the data are off-site, data integrity is maintained and ensures that there is always a complete, unaltered data set that represents the entire data collection record for the OpLoss Project. Data are backed up daily on the server, and the security and data storage protocols are consistent with those used for medical data subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Category C:    Further detail is required on the staging of the various components of restoration.

Comment:      “It is difficult to envision how the project is intended to be sequenced” (associated deliverables and objectives)…where “a flow chart or Gantt diagram would be very useful in this regard.”

Response:

We certainly agree with all of the ISRP’s comments regarding the confusing organization of objectives, strategies, work elements and deliverables. Much of the confusion arises from the formatted nature of the online proposal. We appreciate the efforts to make 1) tracking of deliverables, 2) the contracting process, and 3) project review a “seamless” process in which the online proposal and the Pisces system work hand in hand. However, we would argue that the Objectives section within the online proposal needs considerable re-formatting to make the project flow and work plan easier for everyone to follow and understand. That said, we have included a more organized work plan in which objectives, strategies and actions are clearly put forth in Table 2. The associated changes have also been made in the appropriate sections of the proposal.

Table 2.  2013-2017 Work plan for the Reconnect Project (200200800).

In addition, we have included a Gannt chart (Figure 8) so that the staging of strategies and restoration actions is clear. We expect to begin implementation of the 2013-2017 work plan in June 2013.

Figure 8.  Staging plan for restoration activities associated with the Reconnect Project (200200800).

Group 1.          The Index of Ecological Integrity

Comment:      “The IEI appears to be a very simplistic and preliminary method of aggregating effects.”

Response:

The Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) is an intentionally simplistic method of aggregating physical and biological effects of river regulation. It summarizes the calculated impacts on a highly integrated floodplain system to decision makers and the general public. The IEI also allows a standardized coarse scale comparison of the degree of alteration among different river systems or watersheds, assisting resource managers to prioritize restoration planning. The IEI is an intentionally collapsed but integrated version of the quantitative results from a series of Indices of Biological Integrity (IBI’s). Thus, the IEI is based on scientifically rigorous indices (IBIs) that compare effects experienced from changing hydrology and the cascading of those effects throughout the system.

It is well understood that the hydrological regime is the driving force behind floodplain ecosystem processes (Petts 1996; Poff et al. 1997; Poff & Ward 1989; Richter et al. 1996; Richter et al. 1997).  Alteration of any component of such highly integrated natural systems generally results in cascading trophic effects throughout the ecosystem (Carpenter et al 1985, 1987; Carpenter and Kitchell 1988; Power 1990; Hunter and Price 1992; Strong et al. 1996, Strong 1997). Thus, major system perturbations, such as impounding large rivers, create a myriad of ecological dysfunction, reflected at all trophic levels on an ecosystem scale, as documented in the Kootenai ecosystem (Ashley et al. 1997; Anders et al. 2002).

When rivers undergo regulation, changes in hydrology and hydraulic variables are direct and immediate. These changes result in altering the physical drivers of a highly complex riverine system. The cascading effects of river regulation on the biotic communities are indirect, delayed, and continue to change through time. Under the OpLoss Project, numerous indices (IBIs) are in varying stages of development to assess hydrologic, hydraulic, vegetation, and biological (terrestrial and aquatic) community effects. Each index was developed to assess the effects of river regulation, within a specified timeframe, while providing a method to assess, compare, and/or monitor the effects of specific management actions (Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment (OpLoss) Project (200201100). Each metric of every index will be displayed in a pie chart format allowing a manager to understand the contribution of the metric to the overall index. Similarly, the IEI will depict how each index (IBI) contributed to the overall IEI. This method is meant to facilitate communication among non-scientific and policy driven audiences, while allowing managers and scientists to drill down to each metric and its contribution to the overall condition.

Comment:      “The sponsors want to develop a trophic model which will apparently supersede the IEI. More information is required on the proposed model.”

Response:

We disagree with the ISRP’s comment that “the sponsors want to develop a trophic model which will apparently supersede the IEI.” We believe that between the Reconnect Project data (refer to Group 3 response), the OpLoss Project conceptual modeling efforts and IBI’s, along with the Nutrient Project (199404900) data and analysis collaboration, we will sufficiently develop testable hypotheses/relationships in developing syntheses to guide future RM&E efforts.

Comment:  “Are fish assessment protocols aligned with those to be used in project 199806500, Kootenai River Fishery Investigations?” and “The proposal also mentions a fish index, but methods for sampling fish or specifics about the index are not given.”

Response:

Mebane (2002) and Mebane et al. (2003) developed the River Fish Index (RFI) from a meta-analysis of river data from around the Inland Northwest. Empirical fish data from the Kootenai River were not used to calibrate the RFI in that analysis. Nevertheless, the RFI is applicable for evaluating the Kootenai River fish community. Further evaluation of utilizing this index for the Kootenai River is being conducted under the OpLoss Project.

The proposed Kootenai River RFI uses 5 of the 10 RFI metrics that correlate with river condition, including: 1) percent cold water individuals; 2) number of coldwater native species; 3) number of cold water native species expressed as percentage of these species; 4) number of nonindigenous species; and 5) percentage of tolerant individuals. The remaining metrics are either not applicable to the Kootenai River (e.g., percentage of common carp) or the data collected by the joint fieldwork of the Nutrient Project (199404900) and Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations Project (199806500) are not adequate to calculate the metric (e.g., number of sculpin age classes, number of selected salmonid age classes, catch per unit effort, percentage of individuals with selected anomalies). It is important to note that sampling objectives of projects 199404900 and 199806500 were not designed to calculate the RMI; however, empirical fish data generated by these two projects are being used by the OpLoss Project to quantify effects to the aquatic system. Detailed fish sampling methods, metrics, and associated analyses can be found in the most recent reports from these projects (Holderman et al. 2010; Gidley 2010).

Group 2.          Baseline Nutrient Information and Nutrient Dynamics

The ISRP identified several issues related to the interpretation of the baseline information:

Comment:      “The trophic analyses are quite limited as there is no mention of decomposition, organic matter dynamics, or microbial food webs.”

Response:

The Reconnect Project’s primary focus is restoration oriented and contained a small exploratory research component to better understand the environment we are working in. We recognize that floodplain dynamics are very diverse and complex. We conceptually understand the role decomposition, organic matter, and microbial food webs play in floodplain ecology. As it pertains to the project’s restoration emphasis, we have focused on physical restoration processes described in the literature (Moreno-Mateos 2012, Montgomery and Buffington 1998, Mobrand et al. 1997, Doppelt et al. 1993, Junk et al. 1985).

The process based restoration approach (Beechie et al. 2010) encourages the reestablishment of normative physical, chemical, and biological processes that sustain stream and floodplain ecosystems because we are addressing the problem rather than the symptom. According to the prevailing sentiment in the literature, this approach is second only to protecting currently functioning environments, in-terms of success likelihood (Moreno-Mateos 2012, Beechie et al. 2010, Fausch et al. 2002, Roni et al. 2002). Despite the fact that considerable resources and research effort have been applied to restoration in the last decade, it is still an exercise in approximation, worldwide (Cairns 1991). Therefore, analyzing high-resolution details such as decomposition, organic matter, and microbial food webs far exceed the precision we can expect from any restoration project. Further, because ecological systems are complex and may take years to reach equilibrium, seeing or measuring results of restoration efforts may take a long time. For those reasons, we believe monitoring success at a more macro-scale (primary productivity, macroinvertebrate populations, riparian community, fish populations, etc.) are more likely to produce data that will allow us to estimate the success of the project.

At this time, the Reconnect Project has concentrated on exploratory lentic sampling efforts and qualitative analysis, and we have not focused our efforts on a detailed look at floodplain scale trophic structure and nutrient cycles, such as decomposition, organic matter dynamics, or microbial food webs. The Nutrient Project (199404900) has focused on instream nutrient levels (e.g., phosphorous) and has successfully addressing these deficiencies. In the Reconnect Project, under Objective 5, we propose to initiate studies that would quantitatively define potential nutrient sources, sinks, and chemical/biological processes related to nutrients as they pass through the watershed.

Comment:      “The low chlorophyll a levels in water samples from lotic systems was interpreted as an indication of low primary productivity in these systems relative to lentic habitats. However, most primary production in small, flowing systems is supported by periphyton, algae attached to the streambed substrate, rather than from phytoplankton in the water column. Phytoplankton is more prevalent in lotic habitats. Therefore, the contrast in chlorophyll a levels between these habitat types may be an artifact of the sampling methods rather than an actual disparity in primary production.”

Response:

Sampling methodology could explain some of the differences between chlorophyll a levels because they were somewhat different as a result of the sampling environments. However, both sampling techniques were intended to represent periphyton chlorophyll a levels. The primary difference in sampling methodologies was the relative location from which the samples were taken. At the lotic sample sites, periphyton was collected from tiles placed in the stream substrate and allowed to soak for approximately 30 days. Lentic periphyton samples were collected by suspending a series of five tiles about one meter into the water column from buoys at the surface and allowed to soak approximately 30 days.

Clearly, these sample techniques were different and we recognize the data collected is comparable only at the qualitative level. Still, we determined it to be suitable for explanation purposes because it is not practical to suspend periphyton tiles vertically in the stream, due to current velocities. Similarly, it is not practical to place tiles on the substrate of lentic sites due to muck and lower light penetration at depth. Despite the inability to statistically compare the two samples, we believe the differences represent each environment, accurately at a relative scale.

As the project moves forward, we intend to continue sampling chlorophyll a levels to help estimate project success. We anticipate sampling efforts will continue in both lentic and lotic environments but also recognize our methods might be subject to criticism. We welcome alternative suggestions that will increase the precision of our measurements and their respective comparability.

Comment:      “The sponsors state (p.13) ‘In addition to nutrient sampling, we collected samples that represented primary producing organisms (chlorophyll a and phytoplankton taxonomy) as well as primary producing organisms (zooplankton).’ Please note, zooplankton are secondary producers.”

Response:

We apologize for the typographical error. We do understand zooplankton are not primary producers. After sampling results were evaluated we question, the utility of zooplankton sampling in lotic environments and have considered discontinuing it from our sampling program. We found it to be very difficult to sample zooplankton in the lotic environments because it takes an enormous volume of water to collect a meaningful sample size. Further, considering this project’s success will largely be evaluated on a more macro-scale, we believe we can, in part, estimate success based on chlorophyll a concentrations and macroinvertebrate community composition. Again, we openly welcome comments and alternate suggestions from the ISRP regarding our future sampling protocol.

Comment:      "The proposal also states ‘The graphs shown in Figure 20 suggest that the increased primary production (chlorophyll a) in the lentic areas might reflect the increased nitrogen (DIN) available,’ but earlier they state that data were not sufficient for statistical analyses (note lack of error bars on Fig 20)”…which relates to a similar statement, “This proposal also indicates that there has been an ongoing study of nutrient dynamics in the project reach, yet no results from this effort are presented in the proposal.”

Response:

ISRP observations are correct, and we hope to provide additional clarification. First, the suggestion that primary production in the lentic areas might reflect the increased DIN availability is intended to represent a hypothesis that could be tested later, but was not intended to be a statement of fact. As described below, the Reconnect Project lentic sampling data was exploratory in nature, and we recognized a potential pattern that, if properly tested, could reveal results that are significant to either support acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.

Second, it is also correct that we believe our data are insufficient for statistical analysis. We purposely avoided statistical comparisons because we recognize that sample methods lacked both spatial and temporal replication necessary for meaningful statistical analysis. At the time we began our lentic sampling, we clearly understood that results would be qualitative, and we clearly stated that our lentic sampling was exploratory. Moreover, we were successful relative to our study objective because we are now more aware of some of the more specific questions we can examine.

In short, the Reconnect Project lentic sampling protocol between 2003 and 2006 was an exploratory endeavor. Prior to 2003, other Tribal projects were collecting trophic level data in the Kootenai River (e.g., Project 199404900) and some of the tributary streams (Kruse 2002, Kruse 2004) within the Kootenai Valley. Our first sampling effort in 2003 was instructed by collaborative discussions among project scientists working on Project 199404900. These same discussions led to conceptual models and experimental designs that were later termed “Terracosm” studies (Walters, et.al. 2005). The term “Terracosm” was an artifact generated by the Nutrient initial experiments to test experimental river nutrient additions, which was labeled a “Mesocosm”, an experimental tool that brings a small part of the natural environment under controlled conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesocosm).  

There are several reasons why we spread out our sampling locations at the expense of replication. First, we only had a small budget to conduct this work. Second, prior to Kootenai River fertilization work there was a question on what, if any, effect floodplain reconnection would have on the mainstem with regard to biological entrainment. Therefore, our lentic sampling objectives were exploratory and it was reasonable to sample as many parameters as possible, in as many locations as possible. Given the variability and unnatural setting, combined with our objective of understand the basics of possible biological entrainment, the Reconnect Project decided to spread out geographically and sample as many parameters as possible.

In 2003, we understood that results would be qualitative and clearly stated that our lentic sampling was exploratory. We were successful, relative to our basic study objectives. For example, in 2005 our mean chlorophyll a sample concentration at the Long Canyon Slough site (LCS) was 3.32 milligrams per liter, whereas in 2006 it was 10 milligrams per liter. Similarly, in the Boundary Creek Wildlife Area (BCWA) for 2005 and 2006, we found mean chlorophyll a concentrations to be 1.36 milligrams per liter and 2.0 milligrams per liter, respectively. We do not know why 2006 was more productive than 2005, and we do not know if the difference was due to lack of replication or if there were other unknown factors. But we can now begin look at this question more closely in a study design that examines biological entrainment and nutrient transport. Similarly, we have baseline data that suggests that LCS was more productive than BCWA and that there may be a testable hypothesis and similar related questions (i.e., other sites that have different land use and management) that compare the two sites. Again, as it applies to our study objective, we were successful generating baseline data to develop testable hypotheses that will guide us to a better understanding of the Kootenai River floodplain function.

As mentioned previously, our sampling effort was a result of collaboration with scientists involved with other nearby projects. As a result, our sampling strategy followed similar parameters and similar methods, given the differences in the respective environments being sampled. For data coordination purposes, Reconnect Project field scientists collected data where sample methods and techniques were as uniform as possible. For example; our periphyton sampling protocol in lentic environments was conducted by suspending a series of tiles approximately one meter below a bouy at the water surface. Samples were scraped monthly and sent to the same laboratory, which used the same analysis techniques as the other projects. Why did we choose the lentic sampling locations? Sample sites were chosen to best represent conditions similar to historic conditions. Historic conditions were determined from historic photos, historic aerial photography, and personal accounts described by residents of the valley. Currently, due to massive conversion of floodplain to agricultural use and drastic hydrological modifications, there are no sites that are considered to be natural.

All of the sample sites are upstream of water control structures that transmit water through the levees and back to the river. We chose those sites because they would represent the elements of the floodplain that would most likely be entrained into the river. Clearly, these sites do not have the flood pulse connectivity, nor do they have a natural hydrograph that would have promoted migrating transitional areas; but they were the only lentic areas in the floodplain.

Based on what we have learned to date, estimating the ecological contribution of the floodplain should begin at a smaller scale, specifically tied to restoration projects. Most importantly, there simply are not enough lentic areas in the floodplain to provide resolution at a large scale. However lentic and lotic sampling at smaller scale tributary floodplain restoration sites are designed to detect ecological response. This research will be similar to the intense sampling associated with the Kootenai River Experimental Nutrient Addition Project, where two reference sites are located upstream of the nutrient addition point and six sites located approximately every two kilometers downstream of the nutrient addition site (Hoyle 2009). 

Current plans for post-restoration monitoring, at the Ball Creek Stream Restoration site, include at least two reference sites upstream of the project footprint, six sample sites in the restored Ball Creek alignment (lotic), and four sites in the restored floodplain (lentic). Each of the proposed sample locations will include spatial and temporal replication that will enable statistical comparison that can be tracked through time. It will be necessary to track progress through time because based on research conducted by Morano et al. (2012), wetland systems are slow to recover. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect the immediate response demonstrated by the Kootenai River nutrient additions.

Despite the lack of statistical power of our exploratory sampling efforts, evidence suggests that lentic floodplain water bodies are more productive than some lotic environments (i.e., Ball Creek). We hypothesize that restoration of the floodplain complex will be detectable in Ball Creek. Because we will have reference points at Ball Creek upstream of the restoration footprint, we can test the downstream response of the restoration. Moreover, we intend to test the productivity of the restored floodplain wetlands by comparing those to recently restored wetlands on the Ball Creek Ranch, north of the proposed site. Restored floodplain wetlands associated with this project will be paired with sample locations in the wetlands north of the site. Morano et al. (2012) concluded that wetlands connected to lotic hydrology recover quicker. We hypothesize that the restored floodplain wetlands associated with Ball Creek’s hydrology will be more productive than the disconnected emergent wetlands.

Group 3.          Climate Change

Comment:      “Potential changes in winter ice conditions due to climate change or alterations in winter flow conditions were not discussed. Icing is a major driver of ecological processes in streams and shallow water areas, and winter icing conditions are influenced by alterations to temperature, cloudiness, vegetation, and water flows.”

Response:

The Reconnect Project includes both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. We believe it is unreasonable to address all of the potential effects of climate change on project implementation because critical uncertainties exist regarding the manner in which specific species and whole ecosystems will respond to climate change. Most specific ecological responses to climate change cannot be predicted, because new combinations of native and non-native species will interact in novel situations (Poff et al. 2002). We believe the potential impacts associated with climate change can be addressed over time through the adaptive management process, which can be utilized to inform and promote science-based management of Kootenai Valley resources among biologists, ecologists, researchers, planners, community members and stakeholders. In fact, we believe that the best way to anticipate and respond to climate change is to pay more attention to the role that humans can play in minimizing the risk to ecosystems and the services they provide.

Group 4.          Threats: Population Growth, Land Alteration, Invasive Species

Comment:      “There is no mention of possible impacts for increasing human population or alteration of land use over time.”

Response:

We appreciate the ISRP’s concerns regarding possible impacts resulting from increasing human population and land use alterations. Population growth is an indirect threat to biodiversity and ecosystem viability over which we have little control. Strategies to improve land use planning are still in development and will require ongoing coordination with local planning officials. How we anticipate and respond to these landscape changes will depend on the degree to which the community works together.

We know that from 1969 to 2003, Boundary County experienced an average annual growth rate of 1.91%, and Boundary County officials assume the population could grow by as much as an annual average rate of 2.88% over the coming years (BCP&Z 2008). The Boundary County Comprehensive Plan (2008) includes population trends and an analysis of those currently moving into the community, concluding “…it is reasonable to predict that Boundary County’s population will continue to age,” and “…the highest population influx will continue to be those who are retiring or are about to retire.”

We also know that there are currently 62,490 total acres in agricultural production, and most of that production occurs in the Kootenai River floodplain. As the average age of the population increases, it is difficult to predict, for example, whether agricultural land use will decline and/or whether clustered development will increase; however, floodplain wetlands will continue to provide important regulating and provisioning services. As societal norms change and as resources become scarcer and increasingly commodified, floodplain wetland habitats in Boundary County may become increasingly important for their water storage potential and their functional capacity to remove harmful pollutants from freshwater for drinking, cleaning, cooling and industrial processes. One of our objectives, therefore, is aimed at increasing our ability to leverage project funding and explore opportunities to create emerging ecosystem markets as a way to provide landowners with incentives to improve groundwater storage and other floodplain services. As we have noted in previous responses, we are continuing to expand our thinking and seek innovative solutions to ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation.

We can safely assume that alterations to the landscape will continue to occur in their many forms throughout the entire Subbasin. The Tribe will continue to work with the community and other stakeholders throughout the Subbasin to minimize the adverse impacts of human activities through policies that promote the sound management of sustainable ecosystem resources.

Comment:      “The potential impact of invasive species, other that Reed canarygrass, was not addressed. Given that Didymo does occur in the system and that there are a number of other aquatic species whose introduction could affect project success, this factor should be considered.”

Response:

Project proponents from all five BPA-funded KTOI fish and wildlife projects are aware of the presence of Didymosphenia geminata (Didymo) in the Kootenai River. We are also coordinating with the various agencies and entities involved with current and proposed Didymo research and monitoring in the Kootenai River, consistent with the intent of this ISRP comment. While dense Didymo mats have been observed and monitored during recent years in the river immediately downstream from Libby Dam, we are aware of the potential ecological concerns regarding downstream transport of this invasive diatom. Although Didymo cells continue to be identified in samples collected by the KTOI’s Ecosystem Improvement Project’s (199404900) biomonitoring program, no evidence of invasive Didymo blooms downstream from Kootenai Falls (Montana) has been observed to date.

However, to address this threat and the need to better understand the distribution and ecology of D. geminata in the Kootenai River, personnel from the Corps of Engineers (Greg Hoffman, et.al.), Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (Ryan Sylvester, Jim Dunnigan, et.al.), KTOI, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (Dr. P.V. Sundareshwar), USGS and the University of Colorado (Sarah Spalding), the University of Idaho and Cramer Fish Sciences (Drs Frank Wilhelm, Paul Anders), and others are collaborating on several complementary research and monitoring projects in the Kootenai River. Additional world Didymo experts (Drs. Max Bothwell (UBC) and Cathy Kilroy, NIWA, New Zealand) are providing input and guidance on many aspects of these studies and monitoring programs.

Personnel from the Corps of Engineers (Libby, Montana) have secured funding for the construction and operation of two portable mesocosms (16 replicated troughs each) to study the effects of chemical and environmental conditions on Didymo growth and colonization at the tailrace of Libby Dam. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) continues to monitor and evaluate the status of Didymo in the Montana section of the river, immediately downstream from Libby Dam. MFWP also recently secured funding for a 3-year Ph.D. program to study the effects of various chemical and environmental conditions of Didymo growth on site in Montana in mesocosm systems under the guidance and supervision of limnologist Dr. Frank Wilhelm (U of I). Cramer Fish Sciences was also recently awarded a small grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to develop and implement a program to extend coordinated Didymo monitoring further downstream into Idaho to monitor potential downstream range expansion.

Thus, a coordinated team of scientists and managers are collectively addressing the current status and future trends of Didymo in the Kootenai River, while advancing our knowledge of Didymo biology, ecology, and management options for this important invasive diatom.

Group 5.          Overlap with other KTOI Projects

Comment:      “The relationship of this project to other efforts ongoing in the same area was not fully described. In particular, there seems to be considerable overlap in project objectives between this project and the large habitat restoration program proposed for this reach of the Kootenai River (200200200 - Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon)” where “The relationship between these projects is only briefly discussed.”…and “How are efforts between these projects being coordinated?”

Response:

The ISRP commented that the connections between the three Tribal projects, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG) Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation project (198806500), presented as part of the resident fish, data management, and regional coordination category review, were not adequately described in any of the four proposals. We acknowledge that this was a weakness in our collective proposals and appreciate the opportunity to better explain the relationships between these projects. In reading through the ISRP comments on each of the four project proposals we also recognized that a more thorough explanation of the various advisory groups associated with the Tribe’s projects would also assist the ISRP in better understanding the individual projects, relationship between projects, and the Tribe’s Program as a whole.

Towards this end the following response includes: 1) an overview of the context for the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program; 2) the history of the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program; 3) a summary of the relationship of three Kootenai Tribe projects included in Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review and IDFG’s project 198806500; 4) additional information regarding the advisory and coordination groups used to inform the Tribe’s projects; and 5) additional information regarding the subbasin-scale adaptive management plan that the Tribe is currently developing.

In many of the Tribe’s proposals mention is made of the Kootenai people’s creation story and commitment to the long-term guardianship of the land.  It can sometimes be difficult not to gloss over such statements as mere platitudes. However, the commitment outlined in the Kootenai Tribe’s creation story is a very real and living commitment and represents the foundation from which all of the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program activities emerge.

Specifically, Kootenai Tribe elders pass down the history of the beginning of time, which tells that the Kootenai people were created by Quilxka Nupika, the supreme being, and placed on earth to keep the Creator-Spirit’s Covenant – to guard and keep the land forever. The Kootenais have never lost sight of their original purpose as guardians of the land and the Tribe’s efforts today are a reflection of this commitment.

Context for the Kootenai Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program

As described with varying emphasis in each of the Tribe’s project proposals, over the course of the last century the Kootenai Subbasin has been extensively modified by agriculture, logging, mining, and flood control. To protect and extend agricultural and development, levees were constructed on top of natural sand levees for flood control starting in the 1900s, reducing the hydrologic connection between the Kootenai River and its floodplain. However, without river regulation this levee system failed, or was occasionally overtopped. The Kootenai River was confined by the construction of Libby Dam in Montana, which created Koocanusa Reservoir, and Corra Linn Dam downstream in British Columbia, which impounds Kootenay Lake. Over 50,000 acres of historically highly productive floodplain were converted to agricultural fields, resulting in the loss of riparian and wetland plant and animal species, and the related functions that normally support a healthy ecosystem (EPA 2004). In 1972 Libby Dam became operational, effectively reducing annual peak flows by half and disrupting the hydrograph, which historically featured a single spring freshet that provided energy to drive ecosystem processes. These modifications resulted in unnatural flow fluctuations and changes to the temperature regime in the Kootenai River and its floodplain, which exacerbated the effects of previous anthropogenic impacts. Construction of Libby Dam (in concert with extensive diking) also resulted in a major loss of nutrient inputs to the Kootenai River. Cumulatively, these impacts have resulted in depressed biological system productivity, altered community structure and species composition across trophic levels, and loss of floodplain and riparian function.

The Kootenai Tribe traditionally depended on the vast aquatic and terrestrial resources of the Kootenai River Subbasin and other neighboring areas (i.e., Clark Fork, Pend Oreille and the upper mainstem of the Columbia and Kootenai rivers) for subsistence and ceremonial purposes. A natural fish passage blockage at Bonnington Falls prevented anadromous fish from entering the Kootenai River. However, the Tribe often traveled to salmon fishing areas within the Columbia River drainage in order to take advantage of the large salmon runs in the fall of the year. The Tribe traditionally relied upon the Kootenai River Subbasin’s resident fish year round. “Their chief articles of food are roots and fish. The waters of the Kootenai River afford them at all seasons an abundant supply of salmon-trout,” reported Lt. John Mullan (1885). Schaeffer (1940) reported “the Kutenai fished for ling in the fall/winter months using weirs constructed on tributaries of the Kootenai River.”

While the Tribe relied on roots and fish for their main sources of food (Mullan 1885), terrestrial game and other vegetative resources were also very important for food, medicinal, spiritual and ceremonial purposes. In addition to fish, ducks were taken in great numbers and were a staple for the Kootenai people (Turney-High 1941). Duck netting was a communal activity with the supervision of a Duck Chief. Other waterfowl were cherished, such as geese, but these were taken by means of bow and arrow (Turney-High 1941). Historically nearly 22,000 acres of wetland habitat were maintained by flooding river conditions throughout the Idaho portion of the lower Kootenai Valley (EPA 2004). This large wetland area incorporated high level of energy and nutrient exchanges within the ecosystem. Waterfowl breeding and molting seasons corresponded to flooding and subsequent wetland filling. Avian predators once thrived in the area as well as a result of excellent habitat conditions and thriving aquatic communities. Intact riparian areas with mature cottonwood stands contributed to provide nesting and perching habitats.

The upland terrestrial habitat supported mammals such as white tailed deer, moose, elk, woodland caribou, mule deer, and mountain goat. Woodland caribou were an abundant resource in the Kootenai (Turney-High 1941). The aquatic and terrestrial components of the Kootenai River ecosystem supported mammalian predators such as grizzly bears, lynx, red fox, coyote, gray wolves, cougars, fisher, river otters, mink, bobcat and black bears.

Today the ability of the Tribe to exercise Treaty-reserved fishing rights and to engage in subsistence and cultural uses of aquatic and terrestrial resources is significantly curtailed. The local community has also suffered from the losses of diversity of aquatic and terrestrial resources that would otherwise provide an important contribution to the vitality and economic viability of the region.

Kootenai Tribe Fish and Wildlife Program Overview and History

The Kootenai Tribe’s Fisheries Department was established in 1988 and the Wildlife Division was added in 1999. The role of the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program is to work towards restoration of the Kootenai River ecosystem and implement restoration and mitigation actions that will help achieve the Tribe’s vision of:

The Kootenai River and its floodplain as a healthy ecosystem with clean, connected terrestrial and aquatic habitats, which fully support traditional Tribal uses and other important societal uses.

An additional component of the Tribe’s overarching vision for the Kootenai River Subbasin recognizes that:

A healthy ecosystem reflects and promotes the cultural values and long-term sustainability of present and future generations.

The Tribe recognizes that implementation of this vision needs to occur within the context of a sustainable local community and economy. In support of this approach Tribe is committed to developing and implementing innovative and collaborative approaches to shared guardianship of the land – an approach that is reflected throughout the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program. As part of their Fish and Wildlife Program activities the Kootenai Tribe also seeks specifically to restore their ability to exercise Treaty-reserved fishing rights and to assist the federal (U.S.) government in fulfilling its Tribal Trust responsibilities.

From the outset the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program has been structured around five core guiding principles:

•     Science-based

•     Holistic

•     Collaborative

•     Consistent with Tribal cultural values

•     Inclusive of local social and economic values

•     Adaptively managed

The Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program grew initially out of the urgent need to address the precipitously declining Kootenai River white sturgeon population. The Tribe’s Fisheries Department implemented the first Tribal fish and wildlife project in 1988 that included sampling of the white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River and the construction of an experimental Kootenai Sturgeon hatchery in 1991 (Project 198806400). During the late 1990s and early 2000s the impacts of declining fish populations were highlighted by a series of listing decisions and petitions to list species including Kootenai River white sturgeon (listed 1994), bull trout (listed 1998), burbot (petitioned 2000), and westslope cutthroat (petitioned 1998). 

By 1994 the Tribe and partner agencies in the Kootenai Subbasin were beginning to look beyond single species fisheries management projects and thinking about developing a more comprehensive ecosystem-based approach to investigating, identifying and addressing factors underlying the decline of native fish populations in the Kootenai Subbasin. The Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration Project (199404900), also known as the nutrient project, was started in 1994. The project was initially an offshoot from the Tribe’s Conservation Aquaculture program (198806400), and focused on an ecosystem approach to addressing aquatic bioenergetic trophic levels and water chemistry to support fish life. The nutrient project marked a fundamental shift in thinking at the time, from a belief that fish population declines were a stand-alone problem to be addressed, to a recognition that fish population declines were in fact symptoms of underlying ecological limitations and imbalances that needed to be addressed.

In 1999 the Tribe added a wildlife division to the existing fisheries department and the full Kootenai Tribe Fish and Wildlife Program was created. The Tribe’s wildlife division was added when the Tribe was incorporated into the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (199206105) in 1999 (although the Albeni Falls project began formally in 1992). Inclusion in this project represented the first opportunity for the Tribe to address mitigation for wildlife losses associated with construction, inundation and operation of Albeni Falls Dam (operational losses associated with Albeni Falls Dam have not been addressed yet) and subsequently operation of Libby Dam.

The Lower Kootenai Model Watershed Restoration Project began in 2000 as a request from a landowner for help with habitat restoration work to return historical fish populations to Trout Creek, a west-side tributary to the Kootenai River. The Tribe sought funding from Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) and secured a ten-year Model Watershed restoration grant to fund a restoration and monitoring program in Trout and Long Canyon Creeks beginning in 2003 (Kruse 2007). The majority of restoration actions have now been completed and project monitoring continues under Project 199404900.

In 2002 the OpLoss Project (200201100) and Reconnect Project (200200800) were both added as part of the Tribe’s overall wildlife mitigation program. The NPCC subsequently re-characterized the Reconnect Project as a fisheries project and it has been included in resident fish reviews of projects. However, the Tribe still views the primary focus and purpose of the Reconnect Project as being linked to the OpLoss Project and to wildlife mitigation and restoration objectives.

From the mid 1990s through early 2000s a number of regional efforts were initiated in the Kootenai Subbasin that ultimately resulted in completion of recovery and/or conservation plans for Kootenai River white sturgeon, Bull Trout and Burbot. The Tribe was an active participant in all of the coordinated planning associated with these efforts. Collectively, these various planning efforts helped to further inform and guide the focus of assessment activities conducted under the Conservation Aquaculture Project (198806400), Ecosystem Restoration Project (199404900), and Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat Project (200200200). Table 3 provides a summary of BPA-funded Tribal Program projects and their implementation date.

Table 3.  Summary of Kootenai Tribe Fish and Wildlife Program projects, year projects were initiated and BPA project number.

The Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program grew initially in response to specific restoration issues and opportunities. A more explicit identification of the framework within which the Tribe’s individual projects were nested began in 2003 with initiation of the NPCC efforts to develop standardized and collaboratively developed Subbasin plans throughout the Columbia River Basin. The Tribe and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) took on a leadership role in this effort, producing the first complete Subbasin plan in the Columbia River Basin.

The Kootenai River Subbasin Plan was completed in 2004 (KTOI and MFWP 2004). The Subbasin plan included an assessment of current conditions in the Subbasin, and identified a management plan which incorporated a suite of primary and secondary limiting factors and quantifiable goals and objectives. Figure 9 summarizes the primary and secondary limiting factors. Figure 10 shows the role each of the Tribe’s projects plays in addressing the primary and secondary limiting factors and actions as identified in the 2004 Kootenai River Subbasin Plan (KTOI and MFWP 2004). The Kootenai River Subbasin Plan (along with other Columbia River Basin Subbasin plans) was subsequently amended into the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

Figure 9.  Primary and secondary limiting factors from Kootenai River Subbasin Plan (KTOI & MFWP 2004).

Figure 10.  Summary of relationship of primary and secondary limiting factors, actions (metrics/objectives from subbasin plan) and individual Tribal projects (KTOI & MFWP 2004).

At the outset, the majority of the Tribe’s projects were focused to a large extent on data collection and analysis. Over the years as data and analysis, and monitoring and evaluation accomplished through the Tribe’s projects and through the projects of other regional partners (e.g., IDFG, MFWP, BCMFLNRO) and as the overall understanding of the Kootenai River Subbasin ecosystem has improved -- the focus of the Tribe’s projects has shifted generally to more targeted feasibility analysis in support of implementation of specific restoration or mitigation actions, and to implementation of those actions. This focus is reflected in the Tribe’s 2011 proposals.

Another way to look at the interrelationship of the Tribe’s projects is related to how the projects address the impacts of climate, wetland disconnection and conversion, and Libby Dam hydrology on abiotic conditions, biotic communities, trophic dynamics, and species and population dynamics. Table 4 illustrates the role that each of the Tribe’s projects plays in providing data and/or implementing actions related to each of these ecosystem components.

As part of the initial work to develop a subbasin-scale adaptive management plan for the Kootenai Tribe’s projects (discussed later) the Tribe identified five draft overarching goals that unite the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program and that are consistent with broader-scale initiatives such as the Kootenai Subbasin Plan and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

The five draft goals are to protect, restore and maintain:

• Food web – As an oligotrophic (low nutrient) and fragmented ecosystem, the Kootenai River and its higher order organisms are likely impacted by a lack of food web support. 
• Ecological connectivity within Kootenai River Subbasin – This includes reconnecting tributaries to the mainstem Kootenai River as well as connecting the mainstem Kootenai River to riparian areas, floodplains, and terrestrial habitats. This connection is important for nutrient exchange and will increase available habitat diversity and quantity for fish and wildlife.
• Suitable, self-sustaining or aquatic and terrestrial habitat for fish and wildlife – Habitat is the ecosystem component that can be most directly affected by management actions such as active restoration projects.
• Biological populations – Some species in the Kootenai River ecosystem are either functionally extinct or on the verge of functional extinction. Restoring these populations, and populations of other species they depend on, is important both ecologically and culturally.
• River physical and chemical processes, and their inherent natural range of variability – Anthropogenic activities have affected the physical and chemical processes in the ecosystem, and understanding these changes is necessary to support management actions that will address them.

All of the Tribe’s projects conduct data collection, analysis or implement actions related to achieving these five goals.

Table 4.  Relationship of Kootenai Tribe projects to Kootenai River ecosystem components.

Relationship of Kootenai Tribe projects included in Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review and relationships to Idaho Department of Fish and Game project 198806500

Three Kootenai Tribe projects were proposed as part of the Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review. The ISRP requested a clarification of the relationships between those projects: 

• Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration (Nutrient Project) (199404900)
• Reconnect Kootenai River with the Historical Floodplain Project (200200800)
• Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project) (200200200)

The ISRP also asked for clarification regarding the relationship of the three Tribal projects to the IDFG Fishery Investigations project in the Kootenai Subbasin:

• Kootenai River Fishery Investigations (Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation) (198806500)

The short summary to the ISRP question is that:

• Project 199404900 (Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration) provides nutrient addition in the Canyon Reach of the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake in Canada, and aquatic based, trophic-level and water chemistry monitoring of a 235 km reach of the Kootenai River and key tributaries.
• Project 200200200 (Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project) is implementing habitat restoration actions (including mainstem, substrate enhancement, off channel, riparian, and floodplain habitats) in the Braided Reaches, Straight Reach and Meander Reaches to address the habitat needs of all life stages of Kootenai sturgeon, burbot, bull trout, kokanee, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout and other native fish.
• Project 200200800 (Reconnect Kootenai River with the Historical Floodplain Project) is implementing habitat restoration to reconnect the Kootenai River with the historic floodplain as part of wildlife habitat restoration activities associated with both the OpLoss Project and the Albeni Falls Project. Reconnection projects identified in the 2013-2017 proposal include Ball Creek and Nimz Ranch in the Meander Reach.
• Project 198806500 (Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation) is conducting monitoring and evaluation activities associated with Kootenai sturgeon and burbot that help inform recovery, habitat restoration, Libby Dam operations for sturgeon and burbot, and evaluation and adaptive management in the Kootenai River. IDFG is also a partner to the Tribe on Project 199404900 assisting with implementation of nutrient addition and monitoring the fish community at established monitoring sites throughout the basin.

The following maps are provided to help clarify the physical relationships between the projects and the extent and location of monitoring activities. Figure 11 shows the locations of project 200200200, 200200800, 199404900 and the IDFG project 198806500 electrofishing, egg mat sites, sturgeon free embryo release sites, and sturgeon and burbot sampling sites from project 198806500. Figure 12 shows the location of the Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration Project (199404900) course-scale and fine-scale sampling sites. Figure 13 shows just the location of the IDFG electrofishing, egg mat sites, sturgeon free embryo release sites, and sturgeon and burbot sampling sites from project 198806500 without the other projects. 

Figure 11.  Locations of Kootenai Subbasin projects 200200200, 200200800, 199404900, and 198806500.

Figure 12.  Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration project (199404900) course-scale and fine-scale sampling sites and Kootenai River Operational Loss (200201100) avian and invertebrate sampling sites.

Figure 13.  Idaho Department of Fish and Game (project 198806500) electrofishing sites, egg mat sites, sturgeon free embryo release sites and sturgeon and burbot sampling sites.

In the ISRP comments on the IDFG proposal and on some of the Tribe’s projects, reference was made to the various entities “claiming to coordinate”. Something that is difficult to convey through the proposal format and to people who aren’t intimately familiar with the work in the Subbasin is the extent of day-to-day coordination the occurs among the various management partners throughout the Kootenai Subbasin (i.e., Kootenai Tribe, IDFG, MFWP, B.C. Ministry of Forest Land and Natural Resource Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bonneville Power Administration). We communicate regularly by email and phone, we are in meetings together, we are in workshops together, and we are in the field together on a regular basis. The level of coordination and integration could certainly always be better but there is an extraordinary effort going into working together and continuing to learn how to work together better.

An additional factor that sometimes confounds full integration of projects is the different and occasionally conflicting organizational missions, goals and objectives among different agencies and between agencies, and the Tribe. Additionally, the BPA/Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s review and funding process has separated wildlife and resident fish into artificially independent categories, which minimizes and obscures the integration that occurs in the real world projects.

In the context of this resident fish review, no single action will restore populations of Kootenai sturgeon, burbot, bull trout, or other native fish in the Kootenai River. No single entity’s actions or project(s) will restore the ecosystem. The Tribe and other partners in the Kootenai River Subbasin work together to use human and fiscal resources as effectively as possible to achieve restoration of the Kootenai River ecosystem. This effort includes flow and temperature operations at Libby Dam (USACE and BPA in coordination with Kootenai Tribe, MFWP, IDFG and USFWS), long-term monitoring and evaluation (IDFG, BCMFLNRO, Kootenai Tribe, MFWP), habitat restoration (Kootenai Tribe, IDFG, MFWP), and critical uncertainties research (Kootenai Tribe, USACE, IDFG, MFWP).

The following sections provide additional detail regarding major actions associated with each of the three Kootenai Tribe projects and the IDFG project currently under ISRP review, and a summary of the relationships between the four projects.

Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration (Nutrient Addition) (199404900)

The primary goal of this project is to recover a productive, healthy and biologically diverse Kootenai River aquatic ecosystem across multiple trophic layers. This work is important to help mitigate the effects of Libby Dam impoundment on aquatic processes in downstream river reaches. Currently the project is implementing several nutrient restoration efforts to help mitigate 30 years of lost productivity due to Libby Dam hydro operations.

The primary objective of the project has been to address factors limiting key fish species within an ecosystem perspective. Major project components completed include: establishment of a comprehensive and thorough biomonitoring program, investigation of ecosystem-level productivity, testing the feasibility of a large-scale Kootenai River nutrient addition experiment, the rehabilitation of key Kootenai River spawning and rearing tributaries, the provision of funding for the Canadian government for nutrient enrichment and monitoring in Kootenay Lake, providing written summaries of all research activities, and, holding an annual workshop with other agencies to discuss management, research, and monitoring strategies related to Kootenai River basin activities.

A portion of this project is jointly implemented by the Kootenai Tribe and IDFG (the nutrient addition component for the river is a shared responsibility between the agencies). The Tribe is responsible for the monitoring of lower trophic levels (water quality, algae and invertebrates) while IDFG is responsible for fish community data collections and analyses associated with nutrient addition in the Kootenai River. Additionally, the Tribe purchases the nutrient supply on an annual basis and IDFG is responsible for nutrient site day- to-day management activities. IDFG, the British Columbia Ministry of Forests Land Natural Resource Operations, and the Tribe coordinate to hold an annual two day workshop center largely around the nutrient restoration efforts on the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake, referred to as the IKERT meeting.

Project actions include the following major components:

•     Addition of nutrients in the Idaho Canyon Reach of the Kootenai River and in the south arm of Kootenay Lake in Canada as a mitigation approach to addressing nutrient losses.

•     A large-scale biomonitoring program covering approximately 235 km of the Kootenai River and key tributaries (in place since 2002). 

•     Targeted tributary restoration associated with Kokanee spawning habitat.

Addition of nutrients in the Canyon Reach of the Kootenai River and in the south arm of Kootenay Lake (where Kootenai River discharges into the Lake) in Canada are being used as a mitigation approach to addressing nutrient losses. Nutrient addition of this type are not possible in the Meander Reaches of the Kootenai River because critical environmental conditions that allow for significant primary productivity (i.e., clear, shallow water, rocky substrates) are not present in this reach. However, nutrient effects, such as organic matter spiraling from the upriver nutrient addition zone, and fish migrations, such as kokanee spawner returns from Kootenay Lake, will likely augment trophic productivity in the Meander Reach over time. Nutrient additions in the Canyon reach have helped reestablish the food web in the Canyon and further downstream into the Braided Reach (to a somewhat lesser degree, but still significant) since inception in 2005. The Tribe anticipates that Canyon Reach nutrient addition will compliment habitat restoration work implemented through Project 200200200 in the Braided and Straight Reaches.

The large-scale biomonitoring program associated with this project covers approximately 235 km of the Kootenai River and key tributaries (see Figure 12 for monitoring sites).This biomonitoring program is designed to be sensitive to water borne nutrients, species and community level responses within the water chemistry, algal, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. In addition, the project developed a fine-scale biomonitoring program in 2005, specifically to monitor the effectiveness of the nutrient addition experiment in the Kootenai River. This targeted monitoring project is collecting data on algae species dynamics and key water chemistry parameters in the heart of the nutrient addition zone to provide managers with fine-scale information for adaptive management of the nutrient project on a timely basis.

The biomonitoring program provides critical monitoring data to help measure and evaluate the biological response of habitat restoration actions conducted under projects 200200200 and 200200800 as well as supporting the Tribe’s conservation aquaculture program. Data gathered through this biomonitoring program will also be critical to implementation of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program adaptive management plan and the Tribe’s AMP.

The Tribe began a multi-year stream habitat/biota survey of lower Kootenai River tributaries (between Bonners Ferry and Porthill, Idaho) in 2000. Similar to efforts in the Kootenai River, an ecosystem-based perspective has been used in development of monitoring plans and restoration work in tributaries. Streams where historical kokanee salmon spawning has occurred were given top priority in the selection of tributaries segments to be restored. The critical stream segments this project has and will continue to focus on are the area near the confluence of several key tributaries with the Kootenai River on its historical floodplain. This tributary restoration work and the kokanee response is an important component of larger-scale efforts to enhance the Kootenai River food web.

This project addresses in river conditions only i.e., work is targeted to the aquatic ecosystem within the confines of the river banks, for the most part (some tributary riparian work has occurred and is planned). Other Tribal projects, specifically Projects 200200800 and 200200200 will address riparian, wetland and terrestrial ecosystem habitats.

Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program) (200200200)

The goal of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program is to restore and maintain Kootenai River habitat conditions that support (1) all life stages of endangered Kootenai sturgeon and (2) all life stages of native focal species (i.e., burbot, bull trout, kokanee, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout) through design and implementation of a suite of habitat restoration projects in the Braided, Straight and Meander reaches of the Kootenai River. Building on nearly two decades of data collection and modeling related to physical habitat conditions in the Kootenai River, and on monitoring and evaluation data collected through IDFG’s project 198806500, and the Tribe’s Nutrient, Operational Loss Assessment, Reconnect, and Conservation Aquaculture projects, and the expertise of regional and local experts, the Tribe in collaboration with regional partners developed the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan identifies limiting factors associated with river morphology, riparian habitat, aquatic habitat (including limiting factors associated with the six focal fish species), and other constraints, treatments to address those limiting factors, and restoration strategies for each river reach.

Restoration treatments implemented through this project are designed to address: bank erosion and fine sediment inputs to downstream reaches, lack of cover for juvenile fish, lack of off channel habitat for rearing, insufficient depth for Kootenai sturgeon migration, lack of mainstem hydraulic complexity in the form of variable depth and velocity, insufficient pool frequency, simplified food web, lack of surfaces that support riparian recruitment, loss of floodplain connection, lack of coarse substrate for Kootenai sturgeon egg attachment and larval hiding, lack of bank vegetation, lack of off-channel habitat, lack of fish passage into tributaries, and grazing and floodplain land use.

Project actions are based on ecosystem restoration principles and will help to provide habitat attributes for Kootenai sturgeon that are identified in the Libby Dam Biological Opinion (implementation of the project is included in the Libby Dam settlement agreement), in addition to habitat needs for a range of life stages of burbot, bull trout, kokanee, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout.

Project actions include:

•     Design and implementation of habitat restoration projects in the Braided Reaches, Straight Reach under Phase 2 (i.e., 1a and 1b extension, Bonners Ferry Islands, Straight Reach, Middle Braided 2 Meander, Lower Braided 2 Meander, Cow Creek Slough, Cow Creek, Lower Mill Slough, and Mill Slough). Projects are designed to restore and enhance mainstem, off channel, wetland and floodplain habitat.

•     Design and implementation of a substrate addition project in the Meander Reach near Shorty’s Island (currently presented as a CAP 1135 project) where Kootenai sturgeon are currently spawning over sand and clay substrates.

•     Targeted feasibility analysis, design and implementation of 2 to 3 habitat restoration projects in the Meander Reaches under Phase 2. Projects are designed to restore floodplain connectivity and off channel habitat in the Meander Reaches with a focus on aquatic species. This project compliments work for terrestrial communities, but will not address wildlife mitigation or terrestrial objectives.

•     Development and implementation of monitoring and evaluation plans for each individual Phase 2 and Phase 3 project.

•     Implementation of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program adaptive management plan.

Data and analysis to support development of the project Master Plan, concept designs for Phase 2 and Phase 3, and development of preliminary and final designs for all projects has, and will continue to, incorporate data collection and analysis associated with the Nutrient Project and Reconnect Project (as well as the OpLoss Project). Information collected through IDFG monitoring and evaluation activities for Kootenai sturgeon and burbot was also used to support development of the Master Plan, concept designs for Phase 2 and Phase 3, and development of preliminary and final designs is provide through the data collection and analysis associated with the Nutrient Project. The Tribe is coordinating with IDFG, MFWP and other partners (i.e., BCMFLNRO, USACE, USFWS, BPA) to incorporate the most recent data and analysis in each stage of the project design process. IDFG participates in the Co-Manager and Agency Team (CMART) that has helped develop and review the suite of projects proposed under this project and is coordinating with the Tribe to refine the monitoring and evaluation associated with each project as it is designed.

Biological monitoring and evaluation to determine the biological response to the habitat restoration projects (i.e., 1135 project, and Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects) will be conducted by IDFG under their project 198806500. The Tribe is coordinating directly with IDFG to review monitoring and evaluation associated with individual projects as those projects are developed. The Tribe coordinated with IDFG to conduct pre- and post-project side channel monitoring in support of the Phase 1a and 1b projects implemented under this program in 2011. The Tribe will supplement the IDFG sturgeon and burbot monitoring with additional side channel monitoring in 2012 and is also coordinating with IDFG on development and design of additional side channel monitoring plans.

Information collected through the Nutrient Project’s (199404900) biomonitoring will also be used to help measure the biological response to the suite of habitat restoration projects at various trophic levels and among other fish communities.

IDFG and the program managers for the Tribe’s Nutrient Project, Reconnect Project and OpLoss Project are also participants in this project’s Core Adaptive Management Team which will assist in review and analysis of monitoring and evaluation information and in implementation of the project adaptive management plan.

Reconnect Kootenai River with the Historical Floodplain Project (200200800)

The primary goal of the Reconnect Project is to investigate and implement actions that enhance terrestrial and lentic habitats by reconnecting the Kootenai River with its historical floodplain in the Kootenai River. This project was originally categorized as a wildlife habitat restoration project and the project was closely linked to work conducted under the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (199206105) and the OpLoss Project (200201100). The OpLoss Project is developing the framework to assess and monitor reconnection opportunities. Each reconnection or mitigation project can be folded back into the ecological framework developed by the OpLoss Project to assess cumulative impacts of multiple projects over time. Floodplain reconnection activities under this project are purposely associated with the Tribe’s wildlife mitigation program to ensure long-term protection and designed to address both lentic and terrestrial objectives. Under this project the Tribe has examined the feasibility of reconnecting floodplain habitats with the mainstem in the Meander Reaches of the Kootenai River. Since 2002, this included identification and initial assessment of the feasibility of reconnecting six tributary/wetland complexes to the mainstem Kootenai River.

Project actions include the following major components:

•     Complete design, permitting and implementation of the Ball Creek Stream Restoration Project.

•     Complete other floodplain reconnection activities in association with the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (199206105) and the OpLoss Project (200201100). The Reconnect Project will initiate reconnection/restoration activities on a newly acquired property under the Albeni Falls project (Nimz Ranch).

•     Develop a restoration ranking plan for floodplain/wetland reconnection, restoration and wildlife mitigation opportunities.

•     Explore opportunities to create biologic, social, and economic benefits using flood/groundwater storage and implement pilot project.

•     Assess floodplain ecosystem restoration effectiveness and inform prioritization process by implementing adaptive management process. This includes implementing invasive species control management techniques in floodplain habitats and developing a study plan to assess interaction of trophic and nutrient dynamics between restored floodplain lentic systems and the Kootenai River.

In addition to supporting feasibility assessment work for Ball Creek and completing initial feasibility analysis for reconnecting six other tributary/wetland complexes in the Meander Reaches, LiDAR data collected as part of this project has helped develop a 2-D hydrodynamic model that is used to assess Libby Dam hydraulic impacts, model vegetation succession, and simulate restoration effects to the floodplain under the OpLoss Project along with supporting development of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program Master Plan and conceptual design of projects to be implemented under Project 200200200.

This project will complement and augment habitat restoration work planned in the Meander Reaches under Phase 3 of Project 200200200 by creating conditions that help support an enhanced food web, and contribute to a more complex and diverse terrestrial habitat communities for a variety of wildlife focal species and aquatic species. An important aspect of the Reconnect Project is that it purposefully focuses on wildlife mitigation in the Kootenai River floodplain to ensure long-term protection and enhancement opportunities. Moreover, the Reconnect Project targets floodplain biotic communities identified by OpLoss Project assessments with an emphasis on the intersection between aquatic and terrestrial connectivity. The complimentary work conducted under Project 200200200 will be addressing sturgeon and other focal species (e.g., burbot, kokanee, etc.) mitigation restoration opportunities in the Meander Reaches and focusing primarily on aquatic/riparian restoration objectives.

Biomonitoring data conducted under the Nutrient Project (199404900) are used to help inform project design and will help measure the biological benefits of this project.

Kootenai River Fishery Investigations (Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation) (198806500)

While the three Tribal projects in this proposal cycle (199404900, 200200200 and 200200800) are largely focused on completion of targeted feasibility assessment and implementation of actions to restore habitat (e.g., nutrient addition, mainstem restoration, side-channel restoration, tributary and floodplain reconnection), the Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation Project (in coordination with biomonitoring conducted under 199404900) is the monitoring backbone that supports the design, monitoring and adaptive management of the various restoration projects. The Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation Project is composed of several studies specifically focused on the recovery of white sturgeon (ESA listed), burbot, and salmonid fisheries.

Project actions include the following major components:

•     Monitor spatial and temporal distribution of Kootenai sturgeon spawning events, early May through mid-July by collecting sturgeon eggs on artificial substrates (egg mats).

•     Monitor and evaluate Kootenai sturgeon vital statistics in response to recovery.

•     Monitor and evaluate juvenile and adult burbot population dynamics.

•     Monitor and evaluate burbot early life survival strategies.

•     Monitor and evaluate salmonid vital statistics in response to recovery strategies.

•     Co-manage and evaluate nutrient restoration program.

This project provides monitoring and evaluation to help better understand Kootenai sturgeon response to flow and temperature management operations implemented by the USACE and BPA (in coordination with other partner agencies) and to help inform regional decision-making processes regarding future operations.

This project provides monitoring and evaluation that is helping develop design criteria for Kootenai sturgeon and burbot for the Tribe’s Project 200200200 including design of the Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and 1135 projects.

This project provides monitoring and evaluation of Kootenai sturgeon and burbot that will be used to help evaluate, in coordination with information collected through the Tribe’s biomonitoring sites (199404900), the biological response to actions implemented under Project 200200200. 

Information developed through this project is used to inform discussions and recommendations developed in the Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team, Burbot Conservation Committee, Libby Dam Flow Policy and Technical Teams, and the Tribe’s various technical and expert advisory groups (see subsequent discussion).

IDFG is also a partner to the Tribe on Project 199404900 which helps support ecosystem restoration through nutrient addition as well as the extensive biomonitoring project.

Technical advisory teams, coordination mechanisms, and other critical outreach

A critical element of many of the projects within the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program is the use of technical advisory teams to provide expert technical advice and critical review at various stages of each project. Not every expert is an expert on every topic. To address the need for a rigorous and timely level of review and/or design analysis on various projects and to be sure we get interdisciplinary input, a number of the Tribe’s projects have identified specific teams of technical experts representing a range of disciplines specific to the needs of each project (e.g., river restoration implementation or hydraulic engineering, etc.). These groups fulfill different roles on each of the projects but in all cases are used to enhance the quality of the projects and provide independent review and input at critical junctures.

It was clear from the ISRP’s comments that our presentation of the role and purpose of the different groups relative to different Tribal projects was confusing. For example, in order to make the best use of these expert resources, and in order to assist in integration and information sharing between projects, groups that provide a technical advisory/oversight role for one project (e.g., IKERT for the Nutrient Project) may serve as stakeholder outreach or coordination for another project (e.g., Habitat Restoration Project).

Following is a summary of the major advisory teams that have been assembled for the Tribal projects that make use of them. Table 5 summarizes the different technical oversight or advisory groups, stakeholder or educational outreach and other complimentary coordination mechanisms associated with each project.

Following is a summary of the major advisory groups associated with each of the Tribe’s projects. Where appropriate, membership details are provided for the unique expert technical groups to help illustrate the specific suite of technical expertise that has been assembled to help guide the projects.

Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration (BPA Project 1994-049-00)

Technical Review Group: International Kootenay/i River Ecosystem Restoration Team (IKERT)

Purpose:  Annual IKERT meetings have occurred since 2000 and have played an important role in organizing and directing activities for this project. The IKERT group assists with presenting, analyzing, and discussing monitoring and research data collected by Tribal staff and project contractors to meet project objectives. During the past decade, the group has been heavily involved in review of the nutrient and productivity technical aspects of the project, both for the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake. The group has played an important role in designing the Tribe’s trophic level and water quality biomonitoring program, and nutrient addition feasibility, testing, and implementation.

Group Composition:  All parties involved in the management and/or research of the Kootenai River ecosystem are regularly invited to attend the IKERT annual meeting. Currently representatives from the Tribe, BPA, IDFG, MFWP, BCMFLNRO, the U of I, Idaho State University, and the University of British Columbia attend IKERT functions during most years. Table 6 lists the IKERT representatives.

Frequency of meetings and/or other coordination:  The larger group meeting (all members) occurs once per year, typically in the spring. This allows for review of the previous year’s data and to make adjustments prior to the nutrient addition and biomonitoring seasons. Smaller sub-group meetings occur throughout the year. One such group is the IKERT nutrient sub-committee which meets via conference call 1-2 times per month during the nutrient addition season (June-Sept.). Other smaller meetings include discussions concerning sampling designs, sample size, sampling frequency, data analyses, and report and manuscript development occur on approximately a quarterly basis throughout the year.

Purpose of meetings and/or other coordination:  The primary purpose of the IKERT meetings is to present and review project results within a technical workgroup setting that allows for the interchange of ideas and improvements. Additionally, the group discusses ecosystem restoration ideas and techniques, and provides a forum for presenting information about related topics in other river systems and other inter-related Kootenai River projects.

Other desired outcomes include technical analyses and input on technical issues, such as nutrient limitation evaluations, that can be used by tribal management for decision-making and adaptive management. For example this group was responsible for evaluating biological and water chemistry data and making a recommendation to the Tribe and IDFG regarding whether to add or not add nutrients to the Kootenai River in 2004.

At times, the IKERT meeting will be combined with an Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA) workshop to plan and coordinate all Kootenai River Projects in the Idaho reaches of the river. This allows for a "big-picture" view of fish and wildlife projects in the Subbasin and how to best coordinate them to recover the Kootenai River ecosystem. These have typically occurred on a 5-year basis. As the Tribe’s AMP moves forward to completion we will review coordination with the AEA workshop.

Kootenai River Floodplain Ecosystem Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation Project (BPA Project 200201100)

Technical Review Group: Research Design and Review Team (RDRT)

Purpose:  The purpose of the RDRT is to provide input, reviews, and critiques of project methodology, implementation, analyses results, and interpretation. The RDRT helps to incorporate this information into the Operation Loss Assessment.

Group Composition: RDRT includes invited experts from a range of relevant disciplines including terrestrial wildlife ecology, floodplain and vegetation ecology, wetland ecology, invertebrate ecology, hydrology, Libby Dam operations, modeling expertise, etc. Table 7 presents the RDRT members.

Frequency of meetings and/or other coordination: The RDRT and RDRT subgroups are convened as necessary at appropriate times during the development of methods and/or review results of analyses. Typically, a subgroup is convened at least quarterly, with a full group meeting occurring annually.

Purpose of meetings and/or other coordination:  The purpose of the annual meeting and quarterly subgroup meetings is to inform, discuss, review, critique and recommend project related activities and direction.

Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project (BPA Project 2002-002-00)

Technical Review Groups: Peer Reviewer Advisory Team (PRAT), Co-manager/Agency Review Team (CMART), Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program Policy Team (KRHRP PT), Modeling Review Group, and Core Adaptive Management Team (CAMT).

Peer Reviewer Advisory Team (PRAT): The purpose of the Peer Advisory Review Team (PRAT) is to provide additional depth of expertise to the Tribe’s design team. The PRAT assists in development and review of design concepts, preliminary designs and feasibility analysis, and final design. PRAT members are also available on an on-call basis to provide specific input into development of design criteria, review or interpretation of modeling outputs, or one-on-one assistance with design components. The design team has made regular use of PRAT members in this capacity, seeking advice on subjects such as development of a literature review of salmonid habitat requirements, assistance in development of side channel design criteria, a site visit to the lower Columbia River to view and interpret sturgeon spawning habitat characteristics with a local expert, and review of structural feasibility of design components in the Phase 1a and 1b projects. Table 8 summarizes the PRAT representation.

Frequency of meetings and/or other coordination: The PRAT meets formally on average twice a year for two-day workshops and is also available on call to provide input and review on an as needed basis.

Other advisory Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Project technical groups

Co-manager and Agency Review Team (CMART): The Tribe established the CMART to provide a venue for discussion, review of design concepts and preliminary and final design. The intent was to ensure comprehensive information sharing among the co-managers and agency partners who are working in the Kootenai Subbasin, and also the Federal agencies who have legal obligations under the ESA and Tribal Trust with the project design team. The primary purpose of this group is to ensure that best available science is incorporated into the development, design and implementation of restoration projects and those projects are developed in a collaborative manner.

Participants include technical representatives from: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), B.C. Ministry of Forests Land Natural Resource Operations (BC MFLNRO formerly BC Ministry of Environment), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), BPA, Kootenai Tribe (including program managers for other projects), and University of Idaho. This group also includes the Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team members, individuals involved in implementation of the Burbot Conservation Strategy, and project managers for the Tribe’s other ecosystem restoration projects (e.g., Operational Loss, Reconnect, and Ecosystem).

Core Adaptive Management Team (CAMT): The CAMT includes many participants from the CMART but the purpose of this group is specifically to review monitoring and evaluation plans for individual projects, and participate in annual adaptive management reviews of the KRHRP. The Tribe will also use the CAMT as a mechanism to ensure coordination with monitoring and evaluation activities conducted by co-managers (e.g., IDFG, BC MFLNRO, MFWP) to better understand the effect of KRHRP projects on focal populations. In the future, as the project progresses, the Tribe may recruit additional expertise to this team to assist in review and interpretation of KRHRP monitoring and evaluation information.

Modeling Review Team: The Tribe has also established a modeling review team, which includes the Tribe’s design team members, and representatives from USGS and USACE (and others as appropriate). The purpose of this group is to review model outputs and interpretations, validate and identify potential adjustments to models, and coordinate efforts to eliminate duplication of effort.

Policy Team: The Tribe also established a Kootenai Habitat Policy Team to help provide policy guidance for the project and to help support effective interaction between policy level agency representatives and field staff. Policy Team members include appointed policy level representatives for the USACE, BPA, USFWS, states of Idaho and Montana, and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. NPPC members and staff have also regularly attended Policy Team meetings.

Other major coordination and outreach forums in the Kootenai River Subbasin that influence all of three Kootenai Tribe and one IDFG proposal contained in this review.

The following additional coordination and outreach forums play a critical role in the coordination and integration of ecosystem restoration efforts in the Kootenai River. This information is provided to assist the ISRP in understanding some of the other avenues through which project actions are coordinated.

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative:  The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the City of Bonners Ferry, and Boundary County are working together to address resource issues affecting the Lower Kootenai Subbasin. The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) was formed under a Joint Powers Agreement between the Tribe, the City of Bonners Ferry, and Boundary County in October 2001 to foster community involvement and development in the restoration and enhancement of the resources of the Kootenai Valley. The initiative includes membership and partners that represent the broad diversity of the community. The group has been meeting monthly for over ten years.

KVRI is a proactive forum for the community to bring key players to the table, build connectivity between the community and the agencies for information sharing and exchange, as well as to use partnerships and a collaborative approach for community involvement in restoration efforts. KVRI meets monthly and we use this forum to provide the KVRI board members, agency partners, and community members with information and periodic updates about our projects at key intervals during project implementation. Additionally, subcommittees can be formed (with the approval of the KVRI board) to address a specific subject or issue in more detail. Please see information about KVRI subcommittees and how our projects have used them below. KVRI has also assisted with hosting broad scale public outreach meetings for our projects, as well as the outreach for the development of the Kootenai Subbasin Plan.

KVRI Co-Chairs include Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Tribal Chairperson, Boundary County Commissioner, and Mayor of Bonners Ferry. KVRI Board Member Representatives include: landowner (Industrial), business/industry, conservationist, soil conservation district/ag landowner, corporate agriculture/landowner, U.S. Forest Service – Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, and social/cultural/historical.

In addition to the board members, KVRI includes many partners. KVRI partners include a diverse group of local, state and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, congressional representatives, and community members. Project outreach occurs at least annually through KVRI and more frequently on an as-needed basis.

KVRI Burbot Subcommittee: Due to changes in the ecosystem over the last century, the burbot in the Lower Kootenai River had collapsed and was proposed for listing. Through the Burbot Subcommittee of the KVRI, the Tribe facilitated a collaborative process to prepare and implement a conservation strategy to restore the burbot population. An MOU developed to confirm commitment and guide implementation of the conservation strategy was signed by 16 agencies and entities. By building consensus through the development of the conservation strategy, actions needed to restore burbot and the habitat upon which it depends maintains strong community and agency support. The Tribe coordinates with the KVRI Burbot Subcommittee to gain community input for the support and implementation of this transboundary effort.

The KVRI Burbot Subcommittee includes over 30 members including action agency and co-managers, representatives from non-profit organizations, and community members. The group meets a least semi-annually to coordinate and review progress.

KVRI Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Subcommittee: This group was developed in response to an MOA between Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and EPA region10, and the need to coordinate with City and county governments in association with the designation of this committee as a Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) by Idaho DEQ. The group deals with: Subbasin assessment; load allocation, analysis and implementation; BMP’s for restoration; coordinating partners and responsibility; and looking at new approaches to Temperature TMDL (i.e., potential natural vegetation).

The KVRI TMDL Subcommittee includes 15 members including citizens, county government, Kootenai Tribe, State, Idaho DEQ, farmers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NGOs, environmental representatives, and the county soil conservation district. The subcommittee meets quarterly.

KVRI Wetland/Riparian Subcommittee: This subcommittee developed a reference report for the Tribe, agencies and others to use documenting a decision-making process regarding wetlands and riparian areas in the Kootenai Valley. The purpose of the group is to balance social, natural resources and economic perspectives; coordinate purchase and restoration of wetlands; work in partnership with IDFG and associated Wildlife Management Areas, and conduct education and outreach.

The KVRI Wetland/Riparian Subcommittee includes 15 to 20 members including citizens, county government, Tribe, IDFG, farmers, USFS, NRCS, NGOs, environmental representatives, county soil conservation district, and forestry, agricultural, industrial representatives. The group hasn’t met since 2006. The report resulting from the group’s effort is available at: http://restoringthekootenai.org/resources/F&W-Library/Wildlife/7WL-Final-WRCS.pdf)

KVRI Grizzly Bear Conservation Subcommittee: This subcommittee serves as a forum to disseminate natural resource information, educate community on grizzly bear management and to determine management opportunities. The purpose of the group is to enhance understanding of grizzly bear life history, population trends/genetics, and habitats needs. 

The KVRI Grizzly Bear Conservation Subcommittee includes 25 members including citizens, county government, Tribe, IDFG, farmers, USFS, NRCS, NGOs, environmental representatives, county soil conservation district, and forestry, agricultural, industrial representatives. The subcommittee meets quarterly.

KVRI Wildlife Auto-Collision Subcommittee:  This subcommittee serves as a conduit for reaching out to the community for feedback and guidance in considering ways to reduce wildlife conflicts and building support for transportation mitigation efforts. The purpose of the subcommittee is to implementation of consensus based strategies, identify and increase line-of-sight in area hot spots, collect data to identify hotspots and hotspot changes due to development, and assist with the wildlife crossing database.

The KVRI Wildlife Auto-Collision Subcommittee includes 30 members including citizens, county government, Tribe, IDFG, Idaho Transportation Department, USFWS, USFS, NRCS, US Federal Highways Administration, forestry, agricultural, industrial representatives and NGO environmental representatives. The subcommittee meets once or twice a year.

KVRI Forestry Subcommittee:  The subcommittee works to enhance understanding and help address federal forest resource issues with the community, including and base planning and coordination using a landscape approach.  The purpose of the is to approach decision making process with a balanced approach and make lands economically, ecologically and socially sustainable, use science-based approaches, develop common ground for natural resource managers and community alike, develop grants for additional restoration opportunities and provide education and outreach.

The KVRI Forestry Subcommittee includes 30 members and includes citizens, county government, Tribe, IDFG, Idaho Transportation Dept., USFWS, USFS, NRCS, loggers, forestry, agricultural, industrial representatives and NGO environmental representatives. The subcommittee meets quarterly.

Libby Dam Flow Policy and Technical Teams:  Libby Dam flow management coordination, as it relates to BiOp requirements, occurs through the USFWS BiOp/Libby Dam Operations Regional Flow Policy Team coordinated by the USACE. The Policy Team assigns a Technical Team to summarize the biological and physical considerations for a policy decision regarding sturgeon flow and temperature management at Libby Dam each year. The recommendation is prepared with the specific intent of achieving the requirements of clarified RPA 1 Action 1.5, along with the physical attributes in the Kootenai River thought to positively influence sturgeon spawning success. Success of obtaining certain habitat attributes implemented by the KRHRP will take place in this forum, as well as the USFWS white sturgeon recovery team.

Group participants include the Federal action agencies and co-managers (BPA, USACE, USFWS, Kootenai Tribe, IDFG, MFWP). The group meets annually in the spring to develop and approve flow recommendations for implementation during the sturgeon spawning season.

Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team:  The Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team is convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Recovery Team shares information and analysis regarding Kootenai sturgeon population status, monitoring and evaluation, research work, habitat restoration initiatives, and provides advice to the USFWS. The group also functions as a forum to review and discuss habitat restoration projects, the Tribe’s Conservation Aquaculture program, etc.

The KRWSRT is lead by the USFWS and includes appointed representatives from BPA, MFWP, IDFG, USACE and BCMFLNRO. In addition to the formal membership, KRWSRT meetings are attended by a broad range of experts including members of the Upper Columbia River White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative Technical Working Group, sturgeon experts, and representatives of stakeholder groups. Kootenai River White Sturgeon Recovery Team meetings occur two to three times a year.

Kootenai Tribe’s Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan.

In a number of the ISRP responses to the Tribe’s projects, the ISRP requested information regarding the draft AMP being developed by the Tribe and requested that the draft document be provided. The Tribe has loaded the working draft document onto the Tribe’s web site at http://www.restoringthekootenai.org/.

We were reluctant to provide the document at this time because this is a working document that is only partially complete and substantial additional coordination and development of the document and associated processes still need to occur. This adaptive management plan is not a requirement of the NPCC program nor is it specifically required as a component of any of the Tribe’s projects. This is an initiative that the Tribe has undertaken of its own volition in order to better manage our overall Fish and Wildlife Program.

The purpose of the AMP is to link each of the projects within the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program via a subbasin scale framework in order to better understand and adaptively manage how those projects collectively contribute to ecosystem restoration. Once completed, the AMP is intended to be a living document that will be refined and updated over time as new information becomes available, as results of previous restoration actions are realized, and as the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program continues to mature.

The AMP is intended to provide a framework to formally integrate the Tribe’s various programs and projects. However, it is important to understand that it is not intended to replace or supersede the specific, detailed monitoring and evaluation or adaptive management components of the individual projects that make up the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

The geographic scope of the AMP includes the entire Kootenai Subbasin as measured from ridge top to ridge top. Because it is designed to support all of the Tribe’s projects, and because the Tribe has no authority to manage other agencies’ projects or programs, the administrative scope of the AMP is limited to the KTOI projects. However, in recognition of the size and geographic extent of the Kootenai Subbasin, and cooperative efforts to manage fish and wildlife resources, data and analysis developed by other agencies will also be used to provide critical supplementary information in support of this adaptive management plan.

The Tribe initially explored development of a program-scale adaptive management plan in 2004. At that time the Tribe hosted a multi-agency adaptive management workshop designed to collect input from scientific experts and management stakeholders on development of a subbasin scale adaptive management plan. Topics addressed in this workshop included: 1) identification of particular management options that have potential for restoring key functions in the Kootenai River ecosystem, and important attributes of these options, 2) evaluation of alternative plans for applying combinations of these options over the next few decades, and 3) review of key needs for improvement of monitoring programs in order to insure timely detection of intended immediate effects of each option as well as possible longer-term side effects. The results of this workshop were recorded in 2005 in the document, Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan (Walters, Korman, Anders, Holderman, & Ireland 2005). For a variety of reasons, primarily related to work load on other projects, this effort was temporarily shelved. This initial document provided a general framework that helped guide the evolution of projects over time, particularly with respect to common ecosystem stressors and responses addressed by multiple projects.

In 2010, with the completion of the Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program and the general shift in emphasis of the Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program from assessment and evaluation to feasibility assessment and implementation, the Tribe reinitiated efforts to develop an adaptive management plan in November 2010. This effort has progressed slowly (interrupted by other program work, development of project proposals, etc.) and is currently on hold to be reinitiated in Spring 2012.

In the last review of the AMP, the Tribal team identified a number of missing items and areas of concern in the current draft document. Future work sessions will occur in Spring through Fall of 2012 to: 1) identify and confirm program goals and objectives; 2) refine and finalize the list of metrics used in the program; 3) review and confirm protocols for data storage, confirm methods for data entry, validation, sharing and retrieval; 4) confirm details for coordination with critical non-Tribal entities (e.g., IDFG, BCMFLNRO, MFWP); and 5) develop the agenda and work plan for a Fall 2012 meeting to review data from the 2012 field season and develop an initial set of adaptive management recommendations. The results of this first meeting will be compiled and added to the current draft of the document. A final review draft of the AMP will be distributed prior to the Adaptive Management Team meeting in Fall 2012. At that meeting we will use the document as a guide for decision-making, and note any additional content that needs to be added so the document is an effective tool for guiding the adaptive management decision-making process. In addition, the Tribe is in the process of identifying a team of external experts to assist in the review and refinement of the current draft AMP. Completion of the final document is scheduled for January 31, 2013.

We hope the ISRP will recognize that this is a partial draft document and still very much a work in progress. Toward this end, suggestions to improve the overall framework and content would be appreciated and will be incorporated into our future efforts to the extent possible.

Group 6.          Manipulating Flows below Libby Dam

Comment:      “One issue that was not adequately discussed in the proposal was the extent to which flows from Libby Dam could be manipulated to encourage more channel-floodplain interaction.”

Response:

We know that the operation of Libby Dam is a critical threat to the entire lower Kootenai River Subbasin. But we recognize that the elimination of this direct threat is unlikely given the social, political, and economic issues associated with changing dam operations. Therefore, the Reconnect Project focuses on the reduction of other direct and indirect threats that include diking and channelization.

The results of the floodplain reconnection feasibility analysis, to which we refer in the proposal (and which can be downloaded from our online library – see first initial modeling Scott and Clayton 2004), as well as OpLoss Project hydrologic modeling and analyses revealed that river/floodplain connectivity could not be achieved by changing Libby Dam operations. We determined that floodplain hydrology could be improved by utilizing tributary hydrology as a surrogate for Kootenai River mainstem hydrology. We anticipate, therefore, that by implementing strategies that a) improve floodplain hydrologic function, b) expand the availability of lentic water bodies, c) increase surface flow (by restoring historic stream channels), and d) we will not only increase floodplain viability but also reduce the direct and indirect threats of diking and channelization.

Group 7.          Coordinating Implementation with other BPA-funded Projects

Comment:       “OBJ-2 seeks to implement floodplain reconnection activities in conjunction with BPA mitigation projects 199206105 and mitigation phase of 200201100 by 2021 but the text only addresses strengthening the Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program’s ability to share resources, information, and reduce duplication and costs in floodplain ecosystem restoration.”

Response:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional supporting information and clarify the intent of this objective. It is true that the Tribe’s ability to share resources and information while reducing duplicative costs is enhanced by implementing floodplain ecosystem restoration efforts in concert with these other projects. But it is important to understand the framework within which the Tribe intends to implement floodplain restoration projects associated with both the OpLoss Project (200201100) and the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project (199206105).

As we stated in our proposal, funding for additional Albeni Falls wildlife mitigation implementation by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho is currently under review by BPA. It is unclear as to whether recommended project funding for further mitigation, habitat restoration and enhancement activities will be implemented or whether Albeni Falls project funding will be limited to operations and maintenance. Under these circumstances, we propose that the Reconnect Project serve as a necessary link to continue habitat restoration work on existing lands acquired by the Tribe as partial mitigation for the construction of Albeni Falls Dam. These lands, which now total 900 acres, provide critical floodplain reconnection enhancement opportunities.

The Tribe is proposing to implement habitat restoration activities in ways that are still linked to BPA’s mitigation responsibilities and are a cost-effectiveness alternative for continuing to mitigate fish and wildlife impacts associated with the construction and operation of FCRPS projects. In a previous comment, the ISRP recognized that “restoration of previous functionality requires thinking in new ways and on new scales.” We could not agree more, and believe that it is more cost-effective to utilize the Reconnect Project to implement restoration activities on these lands than to merely maintain the properties in their current degraded condition. Floodplain mitigation properties currently owned by the Tribe, such as the 693-acre Nimz Ranch, provide floodplain reconnection opportunities as well as opportunities to improve wetland functions and enhance long-term viability of ecosystem values.

Group 8.          Sturgeon Assumption

Comment:      “There appears to be some discrepancy between the objectives of this project and the assumptions on which other proposed projects on the Kootenai River are based. The benefits for sturgeon presumed from this project should be consistent with the assumptions in the other proposals.”

Response:

The Reconnect Project was initiated as a wildlife project in 2002 to reconnect fragmented habitats and isolated populations, devise innovative means for fish passage, rehabilitate riparian and wetland habitats and floodplain function, rehabilitate primary and secondary productivity, rehabilitate floodplain function and condition. The hydrologic connection was to be made to mimic natural conditions as much as possible.  Although the project was proposed as a means to add biological connectivity to aquatic habitats and species, we understood that initial floodplain restoration would provide only secondary benefits to sturgeon.

In addition, we understood that historic natural ecosystem conditions in the Kootenai included sloughs, wetlands, and side channels that provided deep-water habitats with a high amount of security cover, critical for juvenile fish. Additionally, off channel habitats would have provided refuge from unmanageable high water velocities typical of the Kootenai River mainstem.  In our 2003 report (Scott and Clayton 2004), we stated that “Partridge (1983) was the first to suggest that the lack of juvenile sturgeon recruitment was likely a product of two factors: (1) The Kootenai River, between Bonners Ferry and Kootenay Lake, has been isolated from its floodplain by dike construction to reclaim the fertile soils for agricultural purposes. Construction of such dikes had profound ecosystem impacts including the elimination of off channel habitats (sloughs and side channels), critical for juvenile sturgeon rearing, and (2) the increase in chemical pollutants released from mineral processing facilities may have affected spawning or recruitment success.”

Literature Cited

Anders, P. J., D. L. Richards, M. S. Powell. 2002. The First Endangered White Sturgeon Population (Acipenser transmontanus): Repercussions in an Altered Large River-floodplain Ecosystem.  Pages 67-82 In: W. Van Winkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, eds. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28.

Ashley, K., et al. 1997. Restoration of an interior lake ecosystem: Kootenay Lake fertilization experiment.  Wat. Qual. Res. J. Can. 32:192-212.

BCP&Z (Boundary County Planning and Zoning).  2008.  Boundary county comprehensive plan. http://www.boundarycountyid.org/planning/compplan/final_draft/09population.htm (accessed 2/15/2012)

Beechie, T., D. Sear, J. Olden, G. Pess, J. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and M. Pollock.  2010.  Process-based Principles for Restoring River Ecosystems.  BioScience 60:209-222.

Cairns, J. 1991.  The status of theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology.  The Environmental Professional. 13:186-194.

Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35:634-639.

Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, J.R. Hodgson, P.A. Cochran, J.J. Elser, M.M. Elser, D.M.  Lodge, D. Kretchmer, X. He, and C.N. von Ende. 1987. Regulation of lake primary productivity by food web structure.

Carpenter, S.R. and J.F. Kitchell. 1988. Consumer control of lake productivity. BioScience 38:764-769.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  2004.  Kootenai river valley wetlands and riparian conservation strategy.  EPA Wetland Development  Grant Program.  EPA Contract No. CD-97001501.  Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative.  Bonners Ferry, ID.

Fausch, K., C. Torgersen, C. Baxter, and H. Li.  2002.  Landscapes to Riverscapes: Bridging the Gap between Research and Conservation of Stream Fishes.  BioScience 52:483-498.

Gidley, C. A. 2010. Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations: Nutrient Restoration 5-year Review. Annual Progress Report, April 1, 2002-March 31, 2009. IDFG Report Number 10-04

Gurevitch, J. and D.K. Padilla. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(9): 470-474 in Examining invasive species impacts across trophic levels: The effect of alga D. geminata (didymo) on macroinvertebrates and cutthroat trout in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem (a National Science Foundation grant proposal). K Hoglund.  2009.  Lewis & Clark College.

Holderman, C., P. Anders, B. Shafii, and G. Hoyle. 2010. Characterization of the Kootenai River Fish Community before and after Experimental Nutrient Addition, 2002-2008. Report to Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Bonneville Power Administration. 101 pp.

Hunter, M.D. and P.W. Price. 1992. Playing chutes and ladders: Heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces in natural communities. Ecology 73:724-732.

KTOI (Kootenai Tribe of Idaho).  1999.  Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish and Wildlife Management Plan.  Bonners Ferry, Idaho.

KTOI and MFWP (Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks).  2004. Kootenai Subbasin Plan. Volume I and II. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.  Portland, OR.

Mebane, C.A. 2002. Chapter for;  River Fish Index, pages 4-1 to 4-40 in: Grafe, C.S.(ed.). 2002. Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework: an Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.

Mebane, C.A., T.R. Maret, and R.M. Hughes. 2003. An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest Rivers 132: 239-261. 

Mobrand, L., J. Lichatowich, L. Lestelle, and T. Vogel.  1997.  An approach to describing ecosystem performance “through the eyes of salmon.”  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2964-2973.

Montgomery, D. and J. Buffington.  1998.  Channel processes, classification, and response.  Pages 13-42 in Naiman, R., R. Bilby, eds. River Ecology and Management.  New York: Springer-Verlag.

Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and Functional Loss in Restored Wetland Ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10(1): e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247

Mullan, Lieutenant J.  1855.  Report of Lieutenant John Mullan, U.S.A. of his examination of the country from the Bitter Root Valley to the Flathead lake and Kootenay River.  Pages 516-526 in Report of the explorations for a route for the Pacific railroad near the forty-seventh and forty-ninth parallels of north latitude from St. Paul to Puget Sound.  Pacific Railroad Surveys.  Vol. I.  Part 2.  33rd Congress, 2nd session, Senate Executive Document No. 78 and House Executive Document No. 91.  Washington, D.C.

Pennington, D. 1999. Personal communication on waterfowl population and production estimates for the USFWS Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge. Boundary County, Idaho.

Petts, G. E. 1996. Water allocation to protect the river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, Vol. 12:353-365.

Poff, N. L., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: A regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., Vol. 46:1805-1817.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, E. S. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime - A paradigme for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.

Poff, N.L, M.M. Brinson and J.W. Day, Jr.  2002.  Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Potential impacts on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the United States.  Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Power, M.E. 1990. Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811-814.

Richards, D.  1997.  Kootenai River Biological Baseline Status Report.  U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Environment, Fish and Wildlife.  Portland, Oregon.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need. Freshwater Biology 37:231-249.

Roni, P., T. Beechie, R. Bilby, F. Leonetti, M. Pollock, and G. Pess.  2002. A Review of Stream Restoration Techniques and Hierarchial Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:2-20.

Schaeffer, C.  1940.  The subsistence quest of the Kutenai:  a study of the interaction of culture and environment.  Kootenai Tribe.  Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.  University of Pennsylvania.

Strong, D.R., J.L. Maron, and P.G. Connors. 1996. Top down from underground? The underappreciated influence of subterranean food webs on above-ground ecology. In Food webs: Integration of patterns and dynamics, eds G.A. Polis and K.O. Winemiller, pp 170-175. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Strong, D.R. 1997. Quick indirect interactions in intertidal food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:173-174

Turney-High, H.H.  1941.  Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association: Ethnography of the Kutenai.  American Anthropological Association.  Menasha, Wisconsin.

Waage, S., K. Armstrong, L. Hwang, and K. Bagstad. 2011.  New business decision-making aids in an era of complexity, scrutiny, and uncertainty - Tools for identifying, assessing, and valuing ecosystem services.  BSR Ecosystem Services, Tools & Markets Working Group.

Walters, C. J., Korman, J., Anders, P., Holderman, C., & Ireland, S. (2005). Draft Kootenai River Adaptive Management Plan.