FY 2000 proposal 199401002

Additional documents

TitleType
199401002 Narrative Narrative
199401002 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFlathead River Native Species Project (MFWP Sub-proposal)
Proposal ID199401002
OrganizationMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrian Marotz, Rick Malta
Mailing address490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Flathead
Short descriptionProtect and enhance native fish by managing the effects of regulated flow and temperature below Hungry Horse Dam on species interactions in the Flathead River. Evaluate effects of thermal control using selective withdrawal. Model macro- and micro-habita
Target speciesBull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Mountain Whitefish
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
1995 Completed cooperative culvert improvement project on Margaret Creek, a direct tributary of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
1995 Completed cooperative sediment source surveys in drainages along Hungry Horse Reservoir containing bull trout spawning and rearing tributaries.
1995 Completed pilot food habits study examining predation of native salmonids by lake trout and northern squawfish in the Flathead River.
1996 Completed cooperative culvert improvement project on Murray Creek, a direct tributary of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
1996 Completed cooperative culvert improvement project on Riverside Creek, a direct tributary of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
1996 Completed cooperative baseline data collection of bull trout spawning habitat quality and utilization in reservoir and backcountry tributaries of the South Fork Flathead River.
1997 Completed cooperative culvert improvement project on Harris Creek, a direct tributary of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
1997 Completed cooperative culvert improvement project on Felix Creek, a direct tributary of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
1998 Completed development of radio-telemetry monitoring system for the Flathead River.
1998 Completed construction of Crossover Creek Wetlands Project in cooperation with project 9101903.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9648701 Focus Watershed Coordination-Flathead Basin (BPA) Serves as liaison between agencies on focus watershed projects.
3874700 StreamNet Geographical Information Services Unit (BPA) Provides GIS and GPS support for design, modification, and archive of watershed maps resulting from projects 9401002, 9502500, and 9101903.
9101904 Hungry Horse Mitigation - Non-native Fish Removal and Hatchery Production (
9101901 Hungry Horse Mitigation - Flathead Lake Monitoring & Habitat Enhancement (C
9502500 Flathead River Instream Flow (IFIM) Project (MFWP)
9101903 Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation - Watershed Restoration & Monitoring (MFWP)
20554 Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation (MFWP)
9401002 Flathead River Native Species Project (MFWP)

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 4.0 FTE $95,157
Fringe $31,213
Supplies Field sampling, radio-telemetry, monitoring, gasoline, lab supplies. $13,570
Operating Communications, rent, equipment repair and maintenance. $35,224
Capital Radio-transmitters (75), one data logging receiver and associated equipment. $28,125
Travel Mileage (13,750 miles @ .31/mile); per diem (40 nights @ $12/day, 45 days @ $23/day, 315 employee da $9,558
Indirect Overhead 17 %. Minus equipment $38,802
Other Graduate student research stipend and radio-telemetry equipment. $12,000
Subcontractor Food habits analysis: 400 stomachs @ $8.50 ea. $3,400
$267,049
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$267,049
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$267,049
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
MFWP Management Staff Annual watershed fish and habitat monitoring. $3,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Achievement of stated objectives on schedule is dependent upon the 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. We must proceed on many projects simultaneously to assure a continuous series of completed tasks. 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:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (low priority). Review next year for a better description of hypotheses and experimental design. Project should be included in a general site review of all sub-basin projects.

Comments: This project is a component of the Hungry Horse Fisheries Mitigation umbrella (20554), the specific goals of which are "to quantify the influence of regulated flow and temperature on fish in the Flathead River". It deals primarily with the effects of Hungry Horse reservoir operation on flow and temperature in the Flathead River downstream (more focused than last year). The main activities appear to be primarily radio tracking and population surveys. No hypotheses or science questions are articulated. The project has been ongoing since 1994, and is projected to continue until 2002, at levels in excess of $250k/yr. This proposal is a reworking of a project once directed at mitigating the effects of excessive drawdowns of Hungry Horse Reservoir. It is more research than implementation and management, especially in FY2000.

This is a fairly well prepared proposal, one that is well integrated with the umbrella. It is in the midrange of quality of proposals reviewed. It cites relevant FWP measures, ESA listings, NMFS hydro operations, plus many specific Hungry Horse/Flathead plans and summaries. There is a tailwater emphasis now, related to changes in flow, temperature, and habitats for bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. The proposal relates the work to the umbrella and two other projects. The past accomplishments are good, reflecting previous emphasis on Hungry Horse tributary habitat improvement. Objectives and tasks are good, if pretty detailed. Schedule and costs are reasonable (the budget seems cheap for the work). There is a small amount of cost sharing officially, but the project is integrated with other projects. The narrative is generally good, making use of the umbrella. Technically, there is little in the way of a clear hypothesis-testing scheme and a need to distinguish between occupied and preferred habitats. This is related to the concepts of realized niche vs. fundamental niche of G.E. Hutchinson.

There is an urgent need for review of this project in consideration of the overall objectives of the Flathead mitigation and restoration effort. All projects under this umbrella are urgently in need of a comprehensive review, which could best be conducted by a review committee convened specifically for this purpose (see also review of other projects under this umbrella).

The reviewers raised several specific points, with the observation that this proposal forms the basis for the IFIM-driven integrated rule curves: Past successes of this proposal were in mitigation work on defective stream culverts and a little pilot work on radio tagging of lake trout. There is no mention of work on northern pike in the review of achievements, but there is on the northern squawfish. Is this work on the northern pikeminnow (aka northern squawfish?). Objective 3: How will monitoring native fish distributions measure interaction strength among species? This does not follow necessarily and the logic is not presented in the methods section. The presence of overlap does not necessarily suggest competition nor does complete habitat segregation. These may suggest something about predator-prey encounter rates. How will the dietary habits of species by location be integrated with the radio-tagging data? Objective 5: How will overlap in spawning sites indicate the level of hybridization between rainbows and cutthroats? Would DNA probes or microsatellites of captured juveniles near those spawning grounds give better information? Likewise, the logic is not presented in the methods section. It is unclear when the proposers are going to put the IFIM model together. Will it really take until 2003 to complete the job? The radio-tagging data will give interesting HIS curves provided that signals are sampled often enough to correspond with changes in flows in the rivers; weekly samples may or may not be often enough. Microhabitat locations are ephemeral. Some effort should be made to follow a subset of each species through a 24h cycle to adequately capture typical time/energy budgets. The objectives are good, but the design of the monitoring was too sketchy to determine potential success or failure. Coordinated use of new geographically specified information techniques is up to date.

This work is central to the program and the idea is good, but description of hypotheses and a better experimental design are needed. Plans have been made to submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals.


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-Until further deliberation


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

How does the current proposal relate to past accomplishments? The past accomplishments show restoration work but current proposal is all monitoring and research.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

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