FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199608702
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
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| Libby Dam Fisheries Implementation and Mitigation Plan | Narrative Attachment |
| 199608702 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199608702 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Focus Watershed Coordination in the Kootenai River Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199608702 |
| Organization | Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rox Rogers |
| Mailing address | 490 N. Meridian Kalispell, MT 59901 |
| Phone / email | 4067586880 / rox_rogers@fws.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Brian Marotz |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
| Short description | Fosters “grass-roots” public involvement and interagency cooperation for habitat restoration to offset deleterious impacts to the Kootenai River watershed fisheries. Establishes cost-share arrangements with government agencies and private groups. |
| Target species | Bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, Kootenai River white sturgeon, burbot |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.42 | -115.6 | Kootenai River |
| 48.86 | -114.82 | Grave Creek |
| 48.29 | -115.5 | Libby Creek |
| 48.88 | -114.91 | Therriault Creek |
| 48.97 | -115.23 | Young Creek |
| 48.38 | -115.65 | Parmenter Creek |
| 48.58 | -115.59 | Pipe Creek |
| 48.5 | -115.6 | Bobtail Creek |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Formed or revitalized 5 citizen-based watershed planning organizations for five key sub-drainages in the basin completing one implementable watershed plan for Grave Creek and made important progress on four other plans. |
| 1998 | Secured FEMA funding ($400,000) for an effort by County, City, homeowners, USFS, NRCS, MFWP, USFWS, Montana DOT, local schools and several private organizations, to reconstruct a major portion of Parmenter Creek to a stable form. |
| 1998 | Coordinated a FEMA remapping of Libby, Big Cherry, Granite, Parmenter, Flower Creeks with the Libby Area Conservancy District, North Cabinet Conservancy District USACOE and USFS. |
| 1998 | Coordinated a Rosgen level III and IV geomorphic survey of Libby Creek and collection of cross sectional data needed to run HEC II modeling necessary to develop a channel design which will return much of Libby Creek to its proper functioning condition. |
| 1998 | Coordinated the development and design of implementable plans to screen bull trout from the Glen Lake Irrigation Ditch on Grave Creek, the most important bull trout spawning trib. in the U.S. portion of the Upper Kootenai. |
| 1998 | Instituted and coordinated an international effort with BC Environment to monitor bull trout populations in the Wigwam River /Lake Koocanusa complex. |
| 1998 | Directed a morphological survey of the unstable lowest three miles of Grave Creek necessary to design a naturally functioning channel. The survey and design will give the local watershed group a critical tool to garner funding to implement the design. |
| 1998 | Participated in intial planning for the rehabilitation of the tributaries to the Pleasant Valley Fisher River on the Lost Trail and Monk properties by the USFWS and NRSC. |
| 1998 | Negotiated a 1.25 mile riparian corridor and channel reconstruction of Therriault Creek where the creek is currently deeply incised, and unstable (part of Tobacco River Drainage which also includes the important Grave and Sinclair Creeks). |
| 1998 | Negotiated for the fencing and riparian planting of several miles of overgrazed westslope cutthroat trout habitat on Young Creek (important recovery tributary to reservoir) and won approval to reconstruct a one mile segment of channelized stream. |
| 1998 | Initiated the halt of tributary stocking of fingerling westslope cutthroat trout into Young Creek and replaced this with remote site incubator (RSI) seeding of the creek. |
| 1999 | Coordinated a Aquatic Nusiance Species Task Force including the Lincoln County Weed District, USFS, ACOE, MFWP, and Kootenai Watershed Lake Associations. The Task force designed signs and brouchures to stop the spread of Eurasian Watermilfoil. |
| 1999 | Educational signs where installed at MFWP , USFS, Lincoln County, and Flathead County water accesses. Research has shown that boater and anglers can spread exotic species, but education can also prevent the spread. |
| 1999 | Formed partnershop with USFWS to restore a channelized section of Grave Creek, an important bull trout stream in the Tobacco River Drainage. |
| 1999 | Coordinated with Project Impact to clean up Flower Creek, a Kootenai River Tributary in Libby, MT. MFWP and Project Impact coordinated a cleanup day involving school children and conservationists. |
| 2000 | Networking with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to Cost Share a "Travelers Information System "to inform out-of- state travelers entering Montana from Idaho about the unwanted spread of Aquatic Nusiance species into the Kootenai watershed |
| 2000 | Arranged for transfer of $70,000 to the Lincoln Co. Commissioners office for reconstruction of a new meander channel in Parmenter Creek. Construction began and was nearly completed at the time of this writing. |
| 2000 | Continued with the" Volunteer Lake Monitoring program" in the Kootenai Watershed. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199500400 | Mitigation For The Construction And Operation Of Libby Dam | Libby Mitigation provides funding and on-the-gound construction for projects coordinated by the Focus Watershed Project |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Compile information on limiting factors to native fish and wildlife production in the watershed area. | a. Utilize existing aquatic habitat surveys, riparian habitat surveys, aquatic population surveys, and other relevant biological and land use surveys to identify and address limiting factors. | duration of project | $4,000 | |
| b. Identify gaps in knowledge that hamper sound management decisions. Coordinate and direct mitigation projects and coordinate with other agencies to design and adaptively implement monitoring strategies to fill the gaps. | duration of project | $5,000 | ||
| c. Determine influences of federal, state, tribal, and private land management on identified limiting factors. | duration of project | $5,000 | ||
| 2. Coordinate cooperative implementation and funding of activities directed to watershed improvement by different interest groups and agencies in focus watershed area. | a. Determine the ownership and the influence of federal, state, tribal and private interests (i.e. water rights, etc.) on the lands that are identified as core recovery areas for native species and where limiting factors might best be addressed. | 3 | $3,250 | |
| b. Facilitate the forming citizen watershed and lake protection groups in sub-drainages that have been identified as core native species recovery areas, giving priority to core areas identified in Montana's Bull Trout Recovery Plan. | duration of project | $11,750 | ||
| c. Empower these groups with FWP's professional expertise and resources necessary to develop implementable plans that address the limiting factors for native species and meet the needs of local communities. | duration of project | $4,000 | ||
| d. Once local subbasin plans are finalized by groups, identify potential financial and physical resources available to implement plans. Solicit the resources necessary and secure mitigation assistance towards implementing the local watershed plans. | duration of project | $4,500 | ||
| e. Compile a list of human and fiscal resources that are potentially available for protection and recovery of habitat for the model watershed. Include potential federal, tribal, state local government and private resources. | 3 | $2,500 | ||
| f. Assist with the implementation of watershed plans and assist with stream habitat improvements on Grave, Libby, Therriault, Young, Parmenter, Pipe, and Bobtail Creeks. | duration of project | $4,000 | ||
| g. Provide for the involvement of volunteers, landowners and educational institutions in the implementation of projects. | duration of project | $5,250 | Yes | |
| h. Provide coordination and leadership to integrate watershed-based fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects, research and monitoring activities in the Kootenai River basin. | duration of project | $4,250 | ||
| i. Maintain a technical advisory committee of the best qualified fluvial geomorphology and fish and fish/wildlife professionals from state, tribal and federal agencies and consultants to advise watershed groups and others performing stream alterations. | duration of project | $4,250 | ||
| j. Assist agencies, tribes and groups to find cooperative funding for habitat improvement projects. | duration of project | $4,250 | Yes | |
| k. Promote the formation of a network of professionals and citizens in each subbasin to help integrate landscape watershed planning. | duration of project | $4,250 | ||
| l. Prepare NEPA documentation and permits necessary for watershed plan implementation. | duration of project | $4,250 | ||
| 3. Maintain a communication network among private and public groups, including planning and fund raising agencies, interested in fish and wildlife issues in the focus watershed area. | a. Provide quarterly reports and/ or newsletter/webpage to inform concerned parties of activities and progress of watershed activities. Prepare and distribute annual report of activities. | duration of project | $9,500 | |
| 4. Establish an effective watershed monitoring and evaluation process. | a. Utilize existing documentation and literature to assist Libby Mitigation personnel with developing project monitoring and evaluation tools. Assist KRN with utilization of watershed monitoring and evaluation processes. | duration of project | $2,500 | |
| 5. Transfer successful watershed planning and implementation processes to other watersheds in Montana and the northwest. | a. Facilitate transfer of methods and information to other watersheds in the northwest. | duration of project | $1,000 | |
| 6. Coordinate with local, regional and national planning and funding agencies (e.g. NWPPC, BPA, NRCS, USDA and others) to assure cooperative planning and implemention of model watershed activities. | a. Contact the BPA and NWPPC planning staffs as often as needed, but no less than once per quarter to keep them informed of the progress in planning for implementation process. | duration of project | $5,000 | |
| 7. Negotiate and implement permanent easements and long-term management agreements in riparian corridors of key sub-basins to protect investments in stream habitat improvements. | a. Identify landholders and agencies that may be willing to create permanent and long-term riparian corridors for fish and wildlife adjacent to core recovery areas identified in the Montana Bull Trout Recovery Plan (MBTRT 1998). | duration of project | $5,750 | |
| b. Negotiate and coordinate agreements with state, federal, tribal and private organizations to place these riparian corridors under permanent and long -term protection from threats to their natural function (e.g. subdivision, channelization). | duration of project | $5,750 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2a. Determine the ownership and the influence of federal, state, tribal and private interests (i.e. water rights, etc.) on the lands that are identified as core recovery areas for native species and where limiting factors might best be addressed. | 2001 | 2003 | $12,750 |
| 2e. Compile a list of human and fiscal resources that are potentially available for protection and recovery of habitat for the model watershed. Include potential federal, tribal, state local government and private resources. | 2000 | 2003 | $17,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction and implementation of projects coordinated by FWC are implemented by Libby Mitigation (199500400). | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide logistical and material support for operation of Focus Watershed Coordination. | a. Purchase and maintain computer diskettes, paper, postage and other minor office equipment. | duration of project. | $1,000 | |
| b. Provide communications support, including telephone and internet connections. | duration of project. | $500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,750 | $2,000 | $2,250 | $2,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring is included in the Libby Mitigation Program | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.00 | $32,514 |
| Fringe | $9,483 | |
| Supplies | $1,500 | |
| Travel | $12,500 | |
| Subcontractor | $45,503 | |
| $101,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $101,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $101,500 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $101,500 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
No change
Reason for change in scope
No change in scope
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFWS | FWC negotiating for funding for stream corridor easements and stream rehabilitation and reconstruction on lower Grave Creek. | $0 | in-kind |
| Kootenai River Network | Technical support | $0 | in-kind |
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:
A response is needed. This project functions as MDFWP's information transfer for their projects in the Kootenai subbasin and as such, it performs an important role of public interfacing. However, the proposal provides an inadequate basis for multi-year funding.The proposal is incomplete, despite quotes from the Subbasin Summary and attachment of the 1998 mitigation and implementation plan. The "technical and scientific background" section contains the relevant information but provides few references. A long reference list is included at the end of the proposal but few of these references are cited in the narrative. The "rationale and significance to regional programs" section is deficient in not citing the Subbasin summary, FWP, BiOp, or even the appended mitigation and implementation plan. The "relationships to other projects" section does not mention any Idaho state or tribal projects on the lower Kootenai River. The narrative does, however, describe a good approach to coordination and cooperation with the public.
The project history provides an interesting summary of accomplishments. Examples are given of improvements in mitigation actions resulting from information produced under the project. Proposal objectives contain a short explanation of FWC's coordination with other entities. Objectives are reasonable but fail to link to the quoted sections of the Subbasin Summary or the appended mitigation and implementation plan. How is a "limiting factor" defined? Are conditions (predation, fishing, competition, water quality, etc.) in downstream rearing areas considered in the analysis? Methods are not included as such, although the narratives include an indication of how things might be done. Monitoring and evaluation is included explicitly as an objective but without detail on methods for evaluating effectiveness. Is a monitoring program already in place? How does the monitoring in this project interface with other monitoring in the basin? Facilities and equipment are reasonable.
Despite the proposal's deficiencies, the project, if staffed by a director, is likely to have a positive effect on fish and wildlife.
Comment:
This project is directly tied to Project Number 199500400 and should be combined with that project. All monitoring and evaluation activities are performed in the mitigation project. CBFWA recommends combining these two projects for the next contracting period.Comment:
Do not fund. The response discussed the ISRP's comments, but did not provide the amount of substantive information needed for a "fundable" recommendation. The proposers appear to assume that deficiencies can be corrected in a future proposal, rather than by amplification of the current proposal. For example, the response to the ISRP comment on significance to regional programs indicates that the section will be improved, but does not submit an improved section as part of the response. A similar response about future correction was given to the comment on the failure to link objectives to the subbasin summary. The response to the question about monitoring is also inadequate. We recognize that the problem with this proposal and the proposers' response to review comments may be caused by the absence of staff for this project. Nonetheless, without a substantive response the scientific and technical quality of the proposal cannot be judged.This is the third year that the ISRP has noted the absence of specific detail in the proposal. In FY99 the ISRP concluded that the proposal fell short of providing concrete plans. In FY00 the ISRP recommended that the project be funded for only one year, with subsequent funding contingent on, among other things, more specificity about the work and results.
In the FY01 preliminary review the ISRP noted that the project would perform an important role of information transfer and public interface. The project history provides an interesting summary of accomplishments and the narrative describes a good approach to coordination and cooperation with the public. However, the proposal is incomplete and provides an inadequate basis for multi-year funding. Few references are cited in the narrative. The "rationale and significance to regional programs" section does not cite the Subbasin summary, FWP, BiOp, or even the appended mitigation and implementation plan. The "relationships to other projects" section does not mention any Idaho state or tribal projects on the lower Kootenai River. Monitoring and evaluation is included explicitly as an objective but without detail on methods to explain how monitoring would interface with other monitoring in the basin and whether a monitoring program is already in place.
CBFWA Comments: This project is directly tied to Project Number 199500400 and should be combined with that project. All monitoring and evaluation activities are performed in the mitigation project. CBFWA recommends combining these two projects for the next contracting period.
Comment:
- We disagree with the ISRP and believe that this project should be funded, but modified. Past performance has been acceptable on this project, but the scope and process of the watershed coordination needs to be reviewed. Currently only the Montana portion of the Kootenai is being covered by this project. Also, there is no decision making body, or technical oversight group to aid the coordinator in planning and decision making. To address these issues, we propose that an organization such as Kootenai River Network would potentially be a more appropriate entity to lead this effort. We also disagree with CBFWA in trying to combine this with 9500400. The scope of this project has always been to cover the entire Kootenai basin (at least the US part). We agree that it is tied to 9500400 since they are both in the Kootenai basin, but there is not otherwise a strong link between the projects. The watershed coordinator position should continue as a stand alone planning and implementation program for the entire Kootenai River watershed.Comment:
The ISRP (p. 33) recommended no funding for the focus watershed coordination in the Kootenai River (199608720). The ISRP cited a history of its own concerns about the project which have not been addressed by the project sponsor. The ISRP said that the project also lacks reference to rationale or significance to regional programs.
Council recommendation: The Council concludes that the ISRP criticisms warrant revisiting the scope and objectives of the watershed coordination function in the Kootenai River. However, this position could be an integral part of the coming process of subbasin planning. Therefore, the Council recommends funding to maintain a coordination function while the schedule of subbasin planning is determined.
The Council recognizes a significant concern in the ISRP's review that applies to the role of watershed coordinators. As described in the Montana proposals, watershed coordination is a broader community outreach function with less than clear reference to specific biological objectives. The Council believes the ISRP's continued evaluation of the performance of watershed coordinators in other subbasins will reveal programmatic issues for Council attention. Already, there is a marked contrast between the reviews in the Kootenai and Flathead and those of the Columbia Gorge subbasins. However, the Council recommends that Bonneville maintain the watershed coordination function in Montana pending subbasin planning. [CBFWA Note: Project number changed in August, 2002 from 199608720 to 199608702 to match BPA project number reporting.]
Comment:
Bonneville's concern that the project sponsor had not adequately involved the entire watershed in this project has been addressed. At this time the Kootenai River Network is implementing on behalf of the project sponsor. Bonneville will assess project implementation success by the Kootenai River Network on an annual basis and will confer with the Council before authorizing funding for subsequent years.Comment:
KRN = sponsor. Sponsor interested in continuing additional trans-boundary work: an additional $25,000 is desired for this work in 2004 & 2005. Check proposal scope. On track.Comment:
The Kootenai River Network is now the project sponsor for this project. This is the minimum request, but KRN would like to entertain a discussion recognizing the KRN's role in accelerating transboundary collaboration in the areas of communication, education, and outreach throughout the watershed.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: |
| $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website