FY 2000 proposal 20008

Additional documents

TitleType
20008 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMonitor and Protect Wigwam River Bull Trout for Koocanusa Reservoir
Proposal ID20008
OrganizationBritish Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJay Hammond
Mailing address#401 - 333 Victoria Street Nelson, BC V1L 4K3
Phone / email2503546343 / jhammond@nelson.env.gov.bc.ca
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionProtect Koocanusa Reservoir bull trout from inappropriate reservoir operating regimes and logging practices by monitoring spawner returns, juvenile densities, habitat conditions and water quality/quantity in critical habitats on the Wigwam River in B.C.
Target speciesBull trout
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
9401000 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks - Libby Excessive Drawdown B.C. will baseline data on stream habitat condition and bull trout abundance.
8346700 Montana FW&P - Mitigation for the Construction and Operation of Libby Dam B.C. will baseline data on stream habitat condition and bull trout abundance.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel BC gov't (MELP) personnel $2,000
Fringe $0
Supplies lab costs for water quality work $17,000
Operating fish fence and related costs $1,500
PIT tags 500 $1,500
Travel $2,000
Other helicopter charter $6,000
Subcontractor fish component $20,000
Subcontractor water quality component $10,000
$60,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$60,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$60,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Habitat Conservation Trust Fund fish stock assessment $15,000 unknown
Montana Dept FW & Parks fish stock assessment (in kind support) $2,000 unknown
Forest Renewal BC watershed restoration $60,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Pre-logging assessment is a critical component of this project. Funding must be obtained as soon as possible to address this time constraint.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund for one year (High priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund for one year (High priority), based on status of population not the quality of the proposal. Subsequent funding contingent on a better proposal that addresses the ISRP concerns.

Comments: This is a proposal by the British Columbia Provincial government for funding the monitoring of bull trout habitat in Wigwam River, a tributary of the upper Kootenai (above Lake Kookanusa) in British Columbia.

This is a fairly good proposal for an important piece of work that technically warrants funding more on the status of the population than the quality of the proposal. The "cost share" credited by Montana's projects on bull trout would be paid for by BPA through this proposal (which seems like odd accounting). However, the work needs to be done and it fits as part of the Libby Dam mitigation package. The work is analogous to the headwater work done in the Flathead system (in this case, the headwaters of the Kootenai are in BC). The proposal adequately cites the FWP, FWS bull trout BiOp, and NMFS BiOp. It relates its proposed work to the Montana projects. The relationships between BPA and a pre-logging assessment seem tenuous at first, but the narrative adequately explains the comparative relationship between evaluating logging and dam impacts. There is excellent cost sharing with BC Forest Renewal and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. There is a short but good background write-up. The rationale is good.

Other parts of the proposal are weak. For a monitoring project, the Relationships to other projects section is very weak. It is mentioned that the "Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is already operating two major projects on Koocanusa Reservoir", but there is no description of these projects. The logical question is, why doesn't MDFWP monitor bull trout as part of these projects? In addition, the Proposal objectives section is inadequate. A series of proposed activities is contained therein, but no measurable objectives. The Budget section is, according to the proposal, "self-explanatory" but it is the obligation of the proposer to make the explanation. Finally, Section 9 (Key Personnel) tells nothing about the caliber of persons to be involved with this project.

There is a policy reservation regarding whether BPA/Council should fund work in British Columbia (a question that we refer to Council to resolve). The argument for such funding is that much of the habitat used by bull trout upstream of Libby Dam (and in the reservoir system) is in the Wigwam River in BC. Whether or not this argument is compelling, it does not appear appropriate to review this proposal on the same basis as others in the basin. The Council needs to consider whether defrayal of costs by the B.C. Government is an appropriate use of Program funds, and, if so, what guidelines should be used to prioritize such proposals. This is a good example, however, of where international cooperation can play big dividends. Funding will supplement an existing program on the U.S. side.

Some specific points/questions:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones identified.

General Comments: I would like to see some specific plans on how the info will be used in reservoir and forest management. This should be included in ongoing Koocanusa work as a subcontract.


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Unclear how data will be used to address the issues identified in abstract (assessing the relative importance of reservoir operations versus forest development).
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]