FY 2000 proposal 199401001

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: Project schedule changes are the norm rather than the exception due to many variables beyond our control (e.g.weather, CBFWA priorities) making prioritization of tasks an adaptive process. It is anticipated that project will proceed as scheduled

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: Notwithstanding the title of the project, its primary objective appears to be to document native bull trout populations in the Kootenai River system within and upstream of Libby Dam. This proposal is under the Kootenai R./Libby Dam umbrella, but it is not clear why it continues as a separate project. As the ISRP identified last year, this project could be integrated with other Libby Dam mitigation work. It is not clear that this work is specific to mitigating the excessive drawdowns (as opposed to general dam mitigation). There is little distinction in the work (or proposal) from other projects. It would be better for this as a stand-alone proposal to have some work specifically tagged to the excessive drawdowns.

Aside from major confusion over scope, the proposal is well linked to the FWP and other plans, to others in the umbrella, and 6 other projects. There is a good list of accomplishments and an excellent list of objectives and tasks and a good narrative, but it is not clear what will be done in FY2000. The budget is fine, and cost sharing with other agencies and projects nearly doubles the amount of funds available (although some of this cost sharing is still BPA funds, e.g., work proposed by the BC Environment's own proposal). The project history is commendable, but little of it relates to excessive drawdowns. There is no budget narrative, but good resumes. Too many typos suggest hasty preparation. The work is good but has already been functionally merged with other projects. There seems to be no reason not to merge it administratively, as well, under a single project on Libby Dam mitigation.

The proposed bull trout work needs better justification. The preamble indicates the nature of damage to bull trout populations resulting from large excursions in reservoir stage, but the obvious mitigation strategy (exploration and implementation of alternative reservoir operating policies) is not discussed. That being the case, it seems unlikely that significant mitigation is likely to occur, and certainly not as a result of this project. The work that will be (and is being) conducted is essentially characterization (e.g., of spawning habitat), development of relevant GIS systems to store and manipulate data, and so on. All of this may well be meritorious, and in fact could (and should) be an important element in development of alternative reservoir operating policies. But, in the absence of such a link, the project (which has been ongoing for at least 3 years) seems to have been conducted in a vacuum. On the basis of the proposal presented, and the requested expenditure level (almost $400k/year of BPA funding, total over $600k), continued funding cannot be justified.

The review group had the following observations and queries:

Confusion stems from the significant overlap between this proposal and proposal 20008 submitted by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks. While cooperation is to be encouraged, duplication is not. Objectives 1 and 2 are very similar in both proposals. Adfluvial populations of charr and trouts must be ecophenotypes and not genetically determined, as there were no large lentic systems before the reservoirs. Therefore, as long as fluvial populations in the tributaries exist, adfluvial ecophenotypes will persist. Why worry about adfluvial populations in particular as mentioned in objective 3? It is not clear from the description of objective 4 what is happening in Young's Creek. Is the overall status of juveniles declining in the creek proper while both fingerlings and RSI (remote site incubators) management techniques are being employed? Were stocking densities variable, such that density-dependent processes kicked in at one year, but not another? Did fingerlings suppress natural populations of west slope cutthroats? Were fingerlings released during the 4 years of RSI use? If so, how can one tell which works best? What were trends in creeks where RSI were not used? There have been major climate shifts due to the Southern Oscillation in the past two years. Has the project tracked precipitation, runoff and temperature as influences on the system? Is there a third, unaccounted factor? Will there be reference tributaries to use as "controls" for the RSI experiments?

Objective 5 will address the problem of segregating influences of fingerling plants from RSI hatchlings.

Objective 6 is disturbing in that it reveals that stocks were transplanted. Unless disease resistance was checked, carriers of exogenous diseases may have been transferred, introducing yet another factor influencing westslope cutthroat population dynamics within the system. If there are mismatched broodstocks, there is a chance for outbreeding depression as a result of transfer of stocks among drainages.

What are the theory and decision protocols that trigger the use of RSI in fish restoration? The experience in Oregon is that hatchboxes do not work and are only useful under very circumscribed conditions. In fact, there is a danger of reducing the sustainability of naturally spawning fish by using wild broodstock as egg sources. Any broodstock development should track native gene pools to avoid genetic swamping of wild spawners.

In conclusion, the title is a misnomer and the work looks indistinguishable from project 8346700, with which it should be combined. If this project is to mitigate for drawdown, the work should address reservoir operations. (See comments in ISRP FY99 report, Appendix A, page 72).

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones listed. The milestones and loss statements are currently being reviewed by the NPPC.

General Comments: How did the expense of this program become part of the direct program?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: