FY 2000 proposal 199101901

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This project is a component of the Hungry Horse Fisheries Mitigation umbrella (20554), the specific goals of which are to monitor various mitigation and enhancement activities within the Flathead basin. These include restoration activities within various Flathead Lake tributaries (e.g., Spring, Skidoo, and Dayton Creek) and within the lake. The funding level for the project is modest, but it is integrally tied to various other projects under the same umbrella, so appropriateness of the budget cannot be fully determined. Insofar as this, and various other components of the same umbrella, are continuing projects, projected to continue indefinitely, some mechanism for conducting an integrated review of all projects (e.g., via a visiting review committee) would be more appropriate than annual review, which of necessity cannot be thorough. It also would be more appropriate for the project to propose for a multi-year period (e.g., 3-5 years), perhaps after the suggested overall review is complete and comments are in hand. At that point, annual progress reports could be made, and reviewed as an administrative action. Insofar as the requested budget increase for the University of Montana ($35k) is concerned, this request could be deferred until the suggested comprehensive review can be conducted, and that interim funding continue at the current level.

The proposal was reasonably well written (much better than last year), and falls in the midrange of proposal quality. However, more care needs to be given to identifying work for FY2000, not just the general direction. The proposal relates its work to the umbrella, the relevant FWP measure, ESA listings for bull trout and westslope cutthroat, and 5 specific plans/reports, as applicable to the CSKT reservation portion of the Hungry Horse mitigation. Accomplishments are clear; it is helpful to have them listed as planning, implementation and monitoring. There are clear objectives, although they are more processes. There is much cost sharing. Technical background is good, but the results could be better synthesized. A table of key data could be helpful. The rationale is weak in FY2000 plans. There is a weak description of the relationships to other projects to accompany the earlier listing (the umbrella should be cited). The project history is concise with listing of results of monitoring and implementation. Objectives do not focus on FY2000 plans. Facilities are probably adequate, but description is brief. This is a relatively low-cost part of the overall subbasin project. Multi-year funding might be appropriate.

Specific comments on objectives:

Objective 1 (monitor abundances of bull trout and cutthroat trout): What about the effects of the lake trout-Mysis complex? The point is that the lake trout-Mysis complex may be such a strong factor that this part of the food web will predominate and that habitat-based management will be ineffectual in restoring native fishes.

Objective 2: At least 3 habitat metrics are not independent measures of habitat restoration. These are (a) area of riparian vegetation planted, (b) miles of fencing installed, and (c) linear distance of stream channel reconstructed. These are not responses by the stream, but human interventions. The biotic measures are fine.

Objective 3: Obtaining baseline information useful for measuring the predation effects of lake trout using the Wisconsin model is a good do-able objective. Weights at age/size class is a missing metric in the list of parameters.

Objective 4 came out of the blue. It does not appear to be connected to anything. Only by reading other proposals do reviewers realize this has to do with diverting fishing pressure away from Flathead Lake.

Objective 5: Subcontracting to the University of Montana and Utah State are good moves. They have been involved in modeling various aspects of Flathead Lake or the lake trout-Mysis trophic axis for some time.

Task 1A. Are these nets fished at the exact same locations? Is this what you mean about fixed locations? Were these locations determined using a random stratified sampling scheme? If not how representative are the locations?

Objective 2, tasks b-e: What process was used to decide between tactics of active vs. passive restoration? Are potential unwanted side-effects considered?

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-The milestones are not specifically listed in this proposal.

Comment:

Monitoring program is well written. Shows that the sponsor knows what they were doing and where they want to go, but it is unclear how the monitoring relates to on-the-ground objectives.

Concerned that this proposal is an example of too much monitoring and too little restoration.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website