FY 1999 proposal 199401002

Additional documents

TitleType
199401002 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMitigation for Excessive Drawdowns: Hungry Horse Component
Proposal ID199401002
OrganizationMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (MFWP, CSKT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrian Marotz
Mailing address490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Columbia / Flathead
Short descriptionDetermine how regulated flow & temperature below Hungry Horse Dam influence predator-prey interactions & survival of native trout in Flathead R. Evaluate effects of thermal control; improve habitat for bull trout & westslope cutthroat trout.
Target speciesbull trout (proposed ESA listing) Naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. mountain whitefish Naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement. rainbow trout Artificial production for fisheries enhancement in offsite areas, naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement. westslope cutthroat trout Natural production assisted by experimental imprint planting to initiate wild runs, naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement, 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 $64,465
Fringe $21,140
Supplies $12,255
Operating $27,340
Capital $21,600
Travel $12,645
Indirect $33,290
Subcontractor $55,700
$248,435
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$248,435
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$248,435
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: Achievement of stated objectives on schedule are dependent upon CBFWA prioritization, NPPC approval, subcontracting processes, permitting processes, unanticipated BPA schedule and timeline changes and major weather events. 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: The maximum drawdown at Hungry Horse is 88 feet, however drafts of 107, 173, and 188 feet occurred recently. Under the Council's Program, BPA must provide mitigation for excessive drawdown. For the last four years, this project has been funded by BPA from Power Supply. In FY 99, BPA moved it into the Direct Program. The IRC's have not yet been implemented, but they will supersede the drawdown limits. Among other things, the project monitors predator / prey interactions and the use of selective withdrawal to control water temperatures. Monitoring shows that spawning redds have increased by 16%.

Questions/ Answers:

What are the benefits of radio-tagging versus mass-marking? Answer: The bull trout and cutthroat trout don't have to be handled. To follow the radio-tagged fish, there are two ground stations on the river which cross-check the aerial flights. Using radio-tags saves time and provides more information about life history.

There is some concern about BPA's shift in funding responsibility and the Council should be made aware of it. The "Operations" budget under the MOA is not being expended to the full extent.

How much of the deep drawdown is for flood control versus power production? Answer: We run the reservoir models, taking inflow into account and then "charge" only for drawdown below the flood control draft point.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

Although adequate for funding, this proposal has some problems. It ranked near the middle of the set. The number of radios/sample size is too small. This project is closely related to proposal number 9401001 in the Kootenai Subbasin. A stated goal is to manage temperature to control lake trout in the river, but releasing warm water may have adverse effects on bull trout and should be reconsidered. There has been little success controlling lake trout in Flathead Lake. The proposal has good ties to the Fish and Wildlife Program and other BPA projects locally, but the objectives are often tasks and do not clearly relate to the background information. The title does not reflect the work proposed. The justification to do the work needs to be better explained. This is a conglomeration of small projects lumped together (headwater, tailwater, etc.). The FTE costs seem low for the amount of work being proposed, which may warrant scrutiny beyond the ISRP.