FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199101901
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Research, Monitor, and Restore Native Species |
| Proposal ID | 199101901 |
| Organization | Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lynn Ducharme |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 278 Pablo, MT 59855 |
| Phone / email | 4066752700 / lynnd@cskt.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Rhonda Swaney |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Flathead |
| Short description | Implement and monitor fisheries improvement activities for native species and conduct a feasibility study on the reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse. Research factors limiting the successful application of mitigation and restoration measures. |
| Target species | Westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.06 | -114.04 | Flathead subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Monitoring: Completed the 1999-2000 Flathead Lake Creel survey |
| 1999 | Monitoring: Completed the 1998-1999 Flathead Lake Creel Survey |
| 1998 | Planning: Completed a progress report summarizing data collected in Dayton Creek for the purpose of identifying restoration priorities |
| 1998 | Monitoring: Completed monitoring of Flathead Lake kokanee experiment |
| 1997 | Monitoring: Initiated baseline indices of lake trout biology |
| 1994 | Monitoring: Completed the 1992-93 Flathead Lake Creel survey. |
| 1994 | Implementation: Acquired conservation easements to protect sharp-tailed grouse habitat through the Montana Trust Fund |
| 1994 | Monitoring: Monitored Upper Flathead Valley sharp-tailed grouse population status |
| 1988 | Planning: Conducted surveys of potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat on the Flathead Indian Reservation |
| 1978 | Planning: Ran a series of newspaper ads to gather information on sharp-tailed grouse observations. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9101903 | Flathead Watershed Restoration and Monitoring | Implements mitigation plan |
| 9410002 | Flathead River Native Species Project | Native/non-native species interaction research in the Flathead River |
| 9502500 | Flathead River Instream Flow Project | Instream habitat restoration |
| 9608701 | Focus Watershed Coordination - Flathead River Watershed | Directly assists the accomplishment of project objectives by coordinating with agencies and landowners to implement mitigation measures. |
| Hungry Horse Dam Wildlife Mitigation | Co-sponsor of Dayton Creek restoration project and other possible conservation easements with Montana Wildlife Trust Fund | |
| 9101904 | Non-native fish removal/hatchery production | Native/non-native species interaction research; offsite mitigation for Flathead Lake. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | a. sample design and analysis | 3 | $2,000 | |
| 6. Research: White sturgeon distribution | a. literature review and Tribal elder interviews | 3 | $3,000 | |
| 7. Planning: Establish an interagency sharp-tailed grouse working group to develop a more detailed strategy | a. Examine habitat at the landscape level in the Flathead and Kootenai Subbasins | 3 | $7,500 | |
| b. Assess habitat suitability | 3 | $13,900 | ||
| c. Develop a set of representative sites in order to ground-truth habitat suitability | 2 | $0 | ||
| 8. Examine in detail the feasibility of augmenting existing sharp-tailed grouse populations at Eureka. | a. Examine additional sources of birds for augmentation. | 3 | $2,000 | |
| 9. Examine the feasibility of captive propagation of sharp-tailed grouse as a source for reintroduction and augmentation stock. | a. Review pertinent literature | 3 | $1,250 | |
| b. Contact individuals with experience in upland gamebird propagation technology. | 3 | $625 | ||
| c. Contact individuals with reintroduction experience with upland gamebirds, specifically sharp-tailed grouse. | 3 | $625 | ||
| 10. Develop a plan and proposal for future actions | 3 | $1,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | 2003 | 2004 | $8,000 |
| 6. Research: White sturgeon distribution | 2003 | 2004 | $6,000 |
| 7. Planning: Establish an interagency sharp-tailed grouse working group to develop a more detailed strategy | 2003 | 2004 | $60,000 |
| 8. Examine in detail the feasibility of augmenting existing sharp-tailed grouse populations at Eureka. | 2003 | 2004 | $4,000 |
| 9. Examine the feasibility of captive propagation as a source for reintroduction and augmentation stock and develop a plan and proposal for future actions. | 2003 | 2004 | $5,000 |
| 10. Develop a plan and proposal for future actions | 2003 | 2004 | $3,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $45,500 | $40,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: native species abundance | a. spring gillnettting | 5 | $6,000 | |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | a. interviews | 5 | $30,000 | |
| b. aerial survey | 5 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | a. fall gillnetting | 5 | $4,000 | |
| 4. Monitoring: Off-site stocking | a. creel survey and field sampling | 5 | $4,000 | |
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | a. field sampling | 3 | $25,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: native species abundance | 2003 | 2006 | $24,000 |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | 2003 | 2006 | $168,000 |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | 2003 | 2006 | $16,000 |
| 4. Monitoring: Off-site stocking | 2003 | 2006 | $16,000 |
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | 2003 | 2004 | $50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $81,000 | $81,000 | $56,000 | $56,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: Native species abundance | a. equipment repair and replacement | 5 | $1,000 | |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | a. equipment repair and replacement | 5 | $5,000 | |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | a. equipment repair and replacement | 5 | $1,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: Native species abundance | 2003 | 2006 | $4,000 |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | 2003 | 2006 | $4,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $7,000 | $7,000 | $7,000 | $7,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: native species abundance | a. trend analysis | 5 | $1,000 | |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | a. annual report | 5 | $5,000 | |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | a. trend analysis | 5 | $1,000 | |
| 4. Monitoring: Off-site stocking | a. returns and survival analysis | 5 | $1,000 | |
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | a. results analysis | 3 | $3,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring: native species abundance | 2003 | 2006 | $4,000 |
| 2. Monitoring: Creel survey | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
| 3. Monitoring: Lake trout biology | 2003 | 2006 | $4,000 |
| 4. Monitoring: Off-site stocking | 2003 | 2006 | $4,000 |
| 5. Research: Mysis dynamics and interactions | 2003 | 2004 | $6,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $11,000 | $11,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.8 | $55,360 |
| Fringe | $7,140 | |
| Supplies | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | $13,900 | |
| Subcontractor | $48,000 | |
| $131,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $131,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $131,400 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSKT | Technical support | $25,000 | in-kind |
| CSKT | Restoration dollars | $0 | cash |
| USFWS | Planning and design/technical support | $7,500 | in-kind |
| USFWS | Restoration project dollars | $7,500 | cash |
| MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks | Technical support | $10,000 | in-kind |
| MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks | Restoration dollars | $10,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Responses are needed for both the fisheries and the wildlife components. This is a new proposal to continue activities formerly under BPA fisheries project number 9101901, and to initiate a feasibility study of strategies for re-introducing sharp-tailed grouse.Fisheries component - Objective #1 of the fisheries component of the proposal is to provide the monitoring of success or failure of habitat alterations in the Flathead Basin. It provides data to describe trends in adult bull trout and cutthroat trout in the lake. These adfluvial species leave the lake to spawn in tributaries where the presumption is that degraded habitat strongly influences their growth and survival. In all likelihood, the number of spawners is now more a reflection of lake trout predation than of habitat quality, thus confounding efforts to assess progress in stream improvement. A response is needed including documentation that a monitoring program is in place that can and will show clear, and timely distinction between benefits to adult populations of bull trout and cutthroat trout produced by reduction of lake trout predation and those caused by habitat improvements in spawning and rearing areas. These data are required for effective adaptive management.
The proposal needs to include explanation of the reasons for doing the things described under Objectives 3, 4, and 5 (Fisheries Component). To what ends are these data being accumulated?
Wildlife component - Objective 7, "Expand an existing interagency working group to develop a detailed examination of potential Columbia sharp-tailed grouse habitat" is fundable, but the proposal needs to be written as a research project and resubmitted. A systematic research project is needed before any stocking program is proposed. Alternative hypotheses should be carefully and rigorously developed for restoring the species, followed by innovative tests for eliminating incorrect alternatives. Objective 7 is to identify from existing data what appear to be suitable areas of habitat. These data can be used to help develop hypotheses for explaining why birds are not presently using these areas, and as a basis for testing the conclusions.
Comment:
Since the objectives are unclear it is difficult to determine if the monitoring proposed here is addressing those objectives.Comment:
Fundable in part; fundable for the fisheries monitoring with qualification, but do not fund the sharp-tailed grouse component. The number of offspring produced by a known number of parents in tributary streams, over a series of years, is key to assessing benefits of habitat improvements for fish. The funding agency should be assured that monitoring in a series of tributaries is rigorous and continuing so that diminishing returns from habitat renovation can be identified. If habitat measures are effective, there should be a tendency for juvenile abundance to increase at any given parent density. If efforts to improve escapement to the spawning grounds are successful there should be a tendency for parent numbers to increase along the curve (relating parents and offspring) described for the improved habitat conditions. The funding agency needs to be confident that strategies and methods exist for obtaining these data. There is some indication that these data are being accumulated, but it is not clearly evident; these data should become an important part of progress reporting for this project.Monitoring fish populations in the lake will not provide reliable data to assess habitat improvements because the primary cause of mortality for native species is predation by exotic lake trout. Absent from the proposal and presumably supported with other funding is a lake trout control program. Since the monitoring proposed herein is related to more than the work proposed, the funding agency should be assured that progress in its program objectives can be isolated from those of other supporters. Respondents argue that it is necessary to monitor age-structure, length-at-age, and age-at-maturity to assess population trends for lake trout because methods available for monitoring total population size cannot provide reliable data. The important data, however, seem to be those taken to monitor trends in indices of fish population size, especially for lake trout and native species.
Project personnel responded to comments suggesting resubmission of the sharp-tailed grouse project as a research proposal by outlining their intention to test existing models designed to predict grouse habitat by comparing predicted and observed parameters in areas with known populations of grouse. If the model performs satisfactorily, they will use it to make predictions about the suitability of other areas in western Montana as grouse habitat. These areas will be subjected to more intensive ground survey. This work will provide bases for deciding whether or not any available sites offer high probability for successful introductions. The description still is very sketchy and falls below what can be evaluated for scientific soundness. The few paragraphs of text are unclear as to methods to be used and the final paragraph of the response suggests that the actual plan is to quickly proceed with the objectives of testing reintroduction. A more detailed proposal is needed to verify soundness of approach and technical competency of project personnel to do the work.
Comment:
- Fundable in part. Agree with the ISRP comments to fund fisheries monitoring with qualifications. Fund objectives 1-6 under project 199101901, Hungry Horse Fishery Mitigation - Flathead Lake. We agree with the ISRP comments on the monitoring program in relation to monitoring lake fish populations in the lake relative to habitat restoration. We are also not aware on any ongoing lake trout control program, which would be needed as part of a successful monitoring program.- Do not fund the wildlife/sharp-tailed portion of this project. Wildlife mitigation for Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam has been funded with the state of Montana under the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement for Libby and Hungry Horse Dam of 1988. This project would more appropriately be funded from this agreement.
- Additionally, we believe it is inappropriate in this instance to mix wildlife and fish projects together. The ISRP comments that they should be "assured that progress in its program objectives can be isolated from those of other supporters". When projects combine numerous objectives that are not related, the evaluation of success becomes very difficult. We acknowledge that the Council Program calls for an integrated approach, and we have funded land acquisition projects that have benefits for both fish and wildlife. This project combines two very distinct projects with unrelated goals and objectives, which would be much easier to analyze if they were separated.
Comment:
Project 24019 identifies a wildlife/sharp-tailed grouse element along with other fish elements and objectives. The ISRP report recommended not funding for the sharp-tailed grouse portion of the project.
Council recommendation: Fund the fisheries portion of the project. In contracting, ensure that the ISRP's concerns about data reporting from the project are addressed and ensure that data from the project are provided to Streamnet.
Comment:
BPA intends to fund the fishery portion with data reporting requirements, but does not intend to fund WL/sharp-tailed grouse element consistent with Council recommendation.Comment:
Check Council recommendation - 04 rec should be $159,000 - fish component approved by BPA, no sharp tailed grouse component - Components of 24019, 24018 in this project. 04 & 05 increase due to indirect and salary increases. On track.Comment:
This ongoing project was originally budgeted within project proposals #24018 and #24019 for a total budget of $159,000 for FY04. Due to the fact that BPA has not funded the new portions of those proposals to date, we have broken out the ongoing activities and the appropriate budget amount for submission.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $143,942 | $143,942 | $143,942 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website