FY07-09 proposal 200200300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Secure & Restore Resident Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 200200300 |
| Organization | Salish & Kootenai Confederated Tribes |
| Short description | The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will jointly pursue the protection of fisheries habitat through land acquisitions and conservation easements to offst losses due tho the construction of Hungry Horse Dam. |
| Information transfer | Aerial photographs and ground surveys used to rank lands proposed for selection will be stored electronically at CSKT or MFWP. Stream lengths used for BPA credits against the NPCC-approved loss statement will be digitized form photos and plat map overlays. Physical locations will be provided as GPS coordinates (UTMs and Lat. Long.) and township and range. Titles and conservation easements will be archived by the signatory agency along with maps and stipulations requested by BPA. Stream miles protected by this project will be credited to BPA as per the 3-way MOA between MFWP, CSKT and BPA. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Lynn DuCharme | Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation | lynnd@cskt.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Lynn DuCharme | Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation | lynnd@cskt.org |
| Lynn DuCharme | Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation | lynnd@cskt.org |
| Brian Marotz | Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks | bmarotz@mt.gov |
| Brian Marotz | Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks | bmarotz@mt.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Flathead
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48N | W114 | Flathead River | The entire Flathead watershed |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Westslope Cutthroatprimary: Bull Trout
secondary: Northern Pikeminnow
secondary: Mountain Whitefish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Contacted over 75 landowners, conducted 25 preliminary appraisals, 13 full Federal appraisals, and purchased 12 additional properties crediting BPA with a total of 10.45 km of habitat under the FY05 and FY06 MOAs negotiated with BPA. |
| 2005 | Conducted 3 preliminary appraisals and one appraisal in accordance with the Federal Land Acquisitions and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199101903 | Hungry Horse Mitigation/Habita | Sister project. MFWP mitigation program to offset losses due to Hungry Horse Dam. Restoration costs on acquired parcels also built into this ongoing program to allow BPA/NPCC the discression of where/how to find restoration actions |
| BPA | 199101901 | Hungry Horse Mitigation/Flathe | Sister project. CSKT mitigation and monitoring program to offset losses due to Hungry Horse Dam. Restoration costs on acquired parcels also built into this ongoing program to allow BPA/NPCC the discression of where/how to find restoration actions |
| BPA | 199608701 | Montana Focus Watershed Coordi | Sister project. This project assists in coordinating with other BPA projects, landowners, and other agencies to avoid duplication and increase efficiency in implementing land protection and restoration activities.. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improve channel stability | Improve channel stability to a level equivalent to the channel stability habitat restoration score of reference streams | Flathead | Enhance channel stability. When possible, provide long term habitat protection through purchase and conservation easements... |
| Improve habitat connectivity | Restore passage to migratory fish by removing potential man-caused barriers, i.e. impassable culverts, hydraulic headcuts, water diversion blockages, landslides, and impassable deltas. | Flathead | Restore connectivity. Provide long term habitat availability through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river | Restore the habiat diversity of the mainstem to a level that supports sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | Enhance/protect habitat diversity. Provide long term channel stability through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries | Improve habitat diversity to a level equivalent to the habitat diversity restoration score of reference streams | Flathead | Enhance/protect habitat diversity. Provide long-term channel stability through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river | Improve riparian condition to a level that supports sustainable population levels of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | When possible, provide long term habitat protection through purchase and conservation easements... |
| Improve riparian condition in the tributaries | Restore riparian habitats to a level equivalent to the riparian condition habitat restoration score of reference streams | Flathead | Protect riparian habitats. When possible, provide long term habitat protection through purchase and conservation easements... |
| Improve shoreline condition | Restore lake shoreline conditions to a level equivalent to the shoreline condition habitat restoration score of reference lakes | Flathead | Protect/resotre lakeshore habitats. Provide long term habitat protection through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Protect Class 1 waters | Protect and maintain prime, functioning tributary habitat | Flathead | Protect habitat. Provide long term habitat protection through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river | Reduce the delivery of fine sediments to a level that supports sustainable populations of focal species that function naturally and may be capable of supporting appropriate forms of human use. | Flathead | Eliminate/reduce sediment sources. When possible, provide long term habitat protection through purchase and conservation easements... |
| Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries | Reduce the delivery of fine sediments to a level equivalent to the fine sediment habitat restoration score of reference streams | Flathead | Reduce sediment sources. Provide long-term habitat protection through purchase, conservation easements... |
| Reduce lake pollutants | Reduce pollution to a level equivalent to the pollution habitat restoration score of reference lakes. | Flathead | Eliminate/reduce pollutant sources. Provide long term habitat protection through purchase, conservation easements... |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Conduct all pre-acquisition activities for potential acquisitions/easements | Conduct all pre-acquisition activities on potential land purchases including negotiations, appraisals, title searches, surveys, etc | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $811,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Lease Land | Protect habitat important to resident fish through acquisition and/or conservation easement | This project will secure habitat through land acquisition and conservation easements | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $15,000,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Develop management plans & habitat restoration plans | Once lands are secured by purchase or easement, a management plan will be developed for each parcel or group of parcels. The management plans will include habitat protection measures including fencing, native plant establishment, noxious weed control, riparian/wetland restoration and stock trespass issues. Habitat project plans will be developed to restore and enhance habitats on newly acquired/protected parcels. Restoration activities will be based upon the latest and best available science. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Habitat Improvement Activities as Needed on parcels acquired or protected via conservation easement | This work element encompasses any habitat restoration or enhancement activities needed on parcels acquired and/or protected via conservation easement under this program. This work was also built into ongoing habitat proposals 199101901 and 199101903 to give BPA/NPCC the choice of funding under this proposal or under ongoing habitat restoration and monitoring projects. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $1,000,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Conduct necessary activities to maintain restored/enhanced conditions of acquired property | This work element may include activities such as weed spraying, fence maintenance, etc needed to keep habitat on protected properties in tact. This work was also built into ongoing habitat proposals 199101901 and 199101903 to give BPA/NPCC the choice of funding under this proposal or under ongoing habitat restoration and monitoring projects. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $250,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Investigate Trespass | Monitor Terms of Conservation Easements | Monitor the conditions of any conservation easements funded under this project. Land technicians will work with landowners to assure compliance. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Monitor Management Plans and Restoration Efforts | Periodic measures will be obtained at five-to-ten-year intervals to compare with baseline information upon purchase or easement. Aerial photographs will be obtained to monitor major shifts in plant communities. The coverage of noxious weeds will be estimated and monitored on all properties | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Improve channel stability Improve habitat connectivity Improve habitat diversity in the mainstem river Improve habitat diversity in the tributaries Improve riparian condition in the mainstem river Improve riparian condition in the tributaries Improve shoreline condition Protect Class 1 waters Reduce fine sediment in the mainstem river Reduce fine sediment in the tributaries Reduce lake pollutants |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Equipment | Property acquisition | $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 | $5,000,000 |
| Personnel | CSKT & MFWP | $114,000 | $127,000 | $131,000 |
| Supplies | Appraisals, surveys, prelim. title | $120,000 | $120,000 | $120,000 |
| Other | Restoration Costs | $0 | $500,000 | $500,000 |
| Other | O & M | $0 | $125,000 | $125,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | CSKT & MFWP | $31,000 | $33,000 | $35,000 |
| Totals | $5,265,000 | $5,905,000 | $5,911,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $17,081,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $17,081,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSKT | Technical support | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| CSKT | facilities | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Flathead Land Trust/Flathead Lakers | Technical assistance & landowner contacts | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| MFWP | facilities | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| NRCS | grant dollars | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| NRCS | Technical support | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| TBD | cost share | $500,000 | $500,000 | $500,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| USFWS | Technical support | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| USFWS | Grant dollars | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $645,000 | $645,000 | $645,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $5,870,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $5,870,000 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: O& M costs should decline over time as native vegetation becomes established.
Termination date: Unknown
Comments: When Hungry Horse Dam filled, it innundated 125 km of the South Fork of the Flathead River and its tributaries to adfluvial trout. This project will hopefully continue at some level until the mitigation debt has been retired.
Final deliverables: Vast acres of valuable habitat for resident fish protected imperpetuity. BPA or other appropriate entity will hold a perpetual habitat easement on all acquired or protected properties.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| 200200300 FY07_09 ISRP response | Jul 2006 |
| 200200300 Proposal: Fix-It-Loop Version | Nov 2006 |
| 200200300 Proposal: Fix-It-Loop Version | Nov 2006 |
| Letter from Chair addressing ISRP concerns | Dec 2006 |
| 200200300 Revised Narrative | Dec 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $5,265,000 | $5,905,000 | $5,911,000 | $17,081,000 | Capital | ProvinceCapital | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $5,265,000 | $5,905,000 | $5,911,000 | $0 | ProvinceCapital | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: As submitted this is not a scientifically reviewable project, but it should be. The sponsors plan to acquire properties. The proposal would benefit by including descriptions of the properties to be purchased and the species to benefit, and/or the criteria to be used for selection of the properties targeted for protection. Please provide a response on these issues. A response is also needed to show how selected properties will help restore fluvial functions (e.g., see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208–217, and cited references). This is basically the same issue raised in our previous review. Previous ISRP comments were: "Do not fund in its present form. This request is for 'base funding' rather than 'project funding' oriented to specific topics, the norm for most BPA-funded work. The proposal does not include the elements expected in a technically sound program. It should include clear and specific objectives, detailed methods, and how the progress in attaining specific objectives will be tracked and evaluated. The reporting of results is inadequate; progress in past activities of the project need to be included as a basis for continuing similar work. Adaptive management requires data for regular assessments and decisions regarding the project strategy."
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The response is not adequate. The sponsors do not seem to understand the nature of a funding proposal. They are defensive about having to supply needed information for a technical evaluation of their project. Reviewers suggest that if their proposal is "substantiated by the science," as the authors say, then it is the obligation to outline that science, as they understand it. Apparently there have been no results from the 2002 funding. Their strategy of land acquisition for ecosystem protection is fine, but the proposal must go beyond that. The response gives statements about what they intend, but these are not given as measurable objectives. It is understandable that they do not want to show their hand on specific properties, but the objectives for a generic property can be given (in the context of the paper cited in the ISRP review, which was intended to be helpful for formulating a response). Development of criteria for selecting properties ought to have been the first objective for the 2002 funding, and given as results in this proposal. Ironically, many of the comments in the response, if presented in proposal format and not as a criticism of the ISRP and its reviewers, could have constituted several elements in a logical proposal and useful response. As the ISRP commented, this project has elements that make it a very worthwhile. The problem is that the sponsors have inadequately presented it and have shown no progress from the previous funding. These deficiencies give a technical reviewer no justification for recommending it. A defensive response criticizing the ISRP reviewers is not helpful. Sponsors of this proposal need to organize their approach and thoughts regarding this process and develop a sound, science-based proposal. Other issues include the lack of justification for acquiring properties based on limiting factors. They need to come with criteria for future acquisitions. What criteria did they use for the 2.36 km of credited property they have already purchased?