FY 1999 proposal 199401001

Additional documents

TitleType
199401001 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMitigation for Excessive Drawdowns at Hungry Horse & Libby Reservoirs - Lib
Proposal ID199401001
OrganizationMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (MFWP, CSKT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameScott Snelson
Mailing address475 Fish Hatchery Road Libby, MT 59923
Phone / email4062934161 / ssnelson@libby.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionMitigate for fish and fish habitat losses due to excessive drafting of Libby Reservoir for power production (Fish and Wildlife Program measures 903(a) and (b)).
Target speciesbull trout (proposed ESA listing) Naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. Kootenai River white sturgeon ESA listed as endangered, artificial production to delay or avoid extinction. mountain whitefish Contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population, restoration through hatchery production or imprint planting to restore wild runs. westslope cutthroat trout Petitioned for ESA listing. Naturally spawning native fish without targeted artificial enhancement, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. interior redband trout Naturally spawning native populations, initiation of spawning runs in historic range using experimental imprint planting. Some areas naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. kokanee Naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement. Kootenai River burbot Naturally spawning fish with possible experimental outplanting, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $62,275
Fringe $12,455
Supplies $52,136
Operating $3,750
Capital $142,850
Tag $2,465
Travel $16,927
Indirect $52,012
Subcontractor $129,535
$474,405
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$474,405
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$474,405
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Project schedule changes are the norm rather than the exception due to many variables beyond our control making prioritization of tasks an adaptive process. Some objectives proceed more quickly than anticipated and others more slowly. It is anticipated this project will proceed on schedule.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: This is the other half of the excessive drawdown project (see 9401002) and has a sunset date. The mitigation biologist is streamlining the project and reducing the number of people required. It is very efficient because the same person works on Libby Mitigation, the Kootenai Focus Watershed and this project. The FY 99 budget can be reduced by $100,000 to $374,405. Loss statements are complete and have been submitted but the Libby Mitigation Plan has not been adopted yet. The goal is to develop pilot projects to look at the cost-effectiveness of different strategies. Our mitigation biologist finds the sites, handles the permitting etc., gets the landowners on board, and sets up the contracts, site plans and habitat work. Projects are currently being conducted on Grave, Sinclair and Therriault creeks. There are also some flood control issues.

Questions/Answers:

Will the implementation projects be monitored? Answer: Yes. The Libby Mitigation project will cover monitoring because this project sunsets.

Are the cutthroat trout objectives appropriate given that recovery efforts over the last 20 years have failed and that kokanee have been established? Answer: Cutthroat trout are still a native species and are still in the headwaters. There was hybridization in the tributaries. The objectives are habitat based and will benefit fluvial and adfluvial fish even if cutthroat trout don't recover.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes.

Programmatic Criteria: Yes. Same overall comments as Project 9401002.


Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Explain how all the tasks can be completed – and specifically how the budget provides for the accomplishment of all the tasks.

Technical Issue: Concern that there is not enough resources dedicated to monitoring effort – explain how monitoring is adequately covered with the stated resources..


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Original 99 request came from a 4 year budget plan, the new budget was adjusted to reflect current actions
Recommendation:
Adequate (with caution)
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal fell in the lower half of the set. The list of tasks and objectives, which is heavy on fact gathering, may be overly ambitious to accomplish in the near future. The proposal is well coordinated with other regional projects and well positioned with the Fish and Wildlife Program and other plans. It is not well explained why this work is related to drawdowns. The proposal writers did not follow instructions on length. This project is closely related to 9401002 in the Flathead Subbasin.