FY 2000 proposal 199608701

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: Permitting, public scoping, interagency coordination, and cost-share funding opportunities all introduce uncertainty into the timing of project implementation. Moving with several projects simultaneously ensures a continuous string of ongoing projects.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This is a proposal intended to "… result in a coordinated effort toward addressing resource concerns within the Flathead River basin …". Most of the funding would go to pay the salary of a "resource coordinator", who would apparently "market" the program, seeking other sources of funding. A small amount of the (approximately $100k per year) funding would go toward pilot restoration projects.

As a coordination proposal, it is not at all clear why this project is not included under umbrella 20554 (Hungry Horse Mitigation Umbrella), which has several restoration projects that appear to be closely related. It seems curious that no such linkage is indicated. This is a continuing project (initiated 1997), and it should be reviewed in the same manner as is recommended for projects submitted under the above-mentioned umbrella – specifically, by a visiting committee, subsequent to which a longer-term (e.g. 3-5 year) proposal should be submitted. Until this is done, it is appropriate to provide "bridge funding" only, and not to initiate any new (pilot) projects.

This is a public-contact project that does not fit the ISRP's proposal evaluation criteria well. Much is quite vague. The work seems reasonable and is probably very important (from a sociological perspective). The proposal cites relevant FWP measures, ESA listings, and 13 other planning documents for the Flathead basin. It also cites 5 Flathead projects as related, which is good. Accomplishments are mostly in planning (soft) and some on-the-ground work in 1998. Although this project is ongoing, the Project history section contains no solid information regarding past accomplishments. There are listing of objectives and tasks, oriented toward coordination, information transfer, and organizing landowners, but the discussion is rambling with no measurable objectives. There is cost share with BOR and on-the-ground support from 4 other groups. The background is ok, but relies on references (e.g., last year's proposal) that will not be read in judging this proposal. The rationale relates the work to other BPA projects (again, why not part of the umbrella?), conservation districts, and public organizations. The objectives narrative is not well focused and is more a discussion of accomplishments and justification. The Methods section contains no concrete information. Statements such as, "We will incorporate the principles of consensus, collaborative effort, and interagency cooperation" make for nice rhetoric but convey no useful information regarding methods. The proposal failed to address the ISRP's FY99 comments, Appendix A, page 70. Although probably important, it is hard to justify funding from the proposal.

On the positive side, the review group made the following observations: There is little doubt that this coordination is valuable. Overall, the group of proposals being coordinated has made great progress in both practical steps towards mitigation (e.g., negotiating easements and land acquisition, mapping of wetlands and floodplains, reclaiming lakes and ponds from exotic fishes) and in identifying strongholds for bull trout and potential limiting factors for burbot and sturgeon. The proposals submitted from the group vary in quality, but the grasp of issues is relatively high. There are a few confusing overlaps among proposals, but communication is very difficult even in the best-managed organizations.

The biggest successes have been in incorporating and coordinating the large numbers of stakeholders in the region (local, private, state, federal and international agencies). It shows up in the ability of various groups to get together to work on various projects, especially at developing the basis for programs. Inferring from the documents, the group may be using adaptive management schemes to manage restoration and research efforts (e.g., stopping the fingerling release program and adopting remote site incubators). Without knowing more about the background, the reviewers were not sure if all underlying assumptions were explicitly identified (i.e., increasing intraspecific competition among progeny of wild spawners, using exogenous gene pools, thereby subjecting native stocks to risks of new diseases and introgression in the future).

They are working where possible to look at trade-offs (e.g., use of integrated rule curves). This is apparent in several proposals and may be part of the culture of the working group and a result of their planning documents.

There is a mixture of passive and active restoration projects. It is not clear that trade-offs or protocols were used to make decisions concerning which tactic to employ. As active restoration has had a checkered reputation, what criteria were used to determine the choice of active over passive restoration?

Many projects, including restoration projects, can be used to test hypotheses concerning factors limiting target species, stream succession, and influences on community structure. Hypotheses were rarely presented and formal presentation of hypotheses testing as part of management strategy is not yet part of the working group culture.

This subbasin has a lot to communicate to the fisheries and conservation biology community, yet few refereed publications have been produced. Publication also fosters more critical analyses of data and problem solving.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: N/A

Comment:

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress.)

Some of the objectives (e.g., identifying watershed entities, evaluating condition of watershed, identifying limiting factors) seem like they should been completed already.

The proposal clearly states that there are no biological objectives at the program level.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website