FY 2000 proposal 199608720

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: Achievement of objective associated with willingness of local governments, public support and permitting processes. Also CBFWA prioritization and NPPC approval.

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 for watershed coordination of fish and wildlife projects in the Kootenai subbasin. This is a well-written proposal that warrants funding. Its quality fell in the midrange of projects reviewed. It is not included in the Kootenai umbrella, which is especially puzzling for a coordination proposal. The proposal cites relevant FWP measures, the white sturgeon BiOp, the NMFS hydrosystem BiOp, ESA listings, and mitigation/implementation plans for Libby Dam. It cites nine existing and one proposed project as related, including both Libby and Hungry Horse mitigation efforts. There is an excellent history of coordination and facilitation that reflects useful opportunism. The objectives/tasks of the project are good, and the schedules/costs seem reasonable. There is cost sharing, although funds are not given in all cases. There is an excellent background narrative. The rationale/significance narrative does not make clear why this project does not join other projects (much of the information is given in the background narrative). There is a good, productive history. Given that the stated coordination and integration are actually represented in the subbasin umbrella, this project could be a good candidate for multi-year funding.

The proposers are following the Flathead model, but not completely. This incomplete mentoring explains the greater variation in the quality of the proposals between the Flathead group (generally good) to the Kootenai group (generally fair, but a few were impressive). They are intelligently working on the human dimension issues first: watershed councils are coordinating local, private, state, federal and Canadian interests. The review group was impressed by the Flathead model, and key staff are central to both the Flathead work and that proposed for the Kootenai. Undoubtedly what was learned on the Flathead will lead to quicker progress here, depending upon public support and that of the cooperators.

The reviewers noted some sticky issues that the Focus Group will have to address: The key is to get this group to accept that rainbow trout (redbands) and kokanee salmon are probably exotics, at least according to Robert Behnke (1992). They should not be above the great falls of the Upper Columbia. Hybridization by rainbow trout with westslope cutthroat trout is a serious threat to the native cutthroat. Proposers have done a good job in identifying the importance of the transboundary aspects of the population structure of bull trout (Wigwam Creek) and burbot, although the term metapopulation is used too loosely. We do not know if the processes of the formal definition of metapopulation dynamics as defined by Richard Levins apply either, and a coming publication by Jason Dunham and Bruce Reiman suggests that metapopulation dynamics vary from the model originally described by Levin.

Bull trout in Idaho do not disperse and recolonize well.

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? The side-effects of using hatchery stocks to supplement wild spawners should be well considered. Hatchery stocks can increase intraspecific competition if food is limited. Essentially, the use of supplementation implicitly argues that the greatest bottleneck for the population is reproduction, that space and productivity are not a problem. It has already been noted in some of the proposals that, indeed, productivity is a key issue.

If kokanee are exotic, planting them to provide additional forage for sturgeon should be approached with caution, if at all. The literature on feeding by white sturgeon indicates that their tastes are broad. If they can swallow it, it will be swallowed.

The project should be included in an in-depth peer review of all projects in the Kootenai subbasin. This project is on a good track and it should benefit from such a review.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: N/A

Comment:

Some of the objectives (e.g., compile information on limiting factors, establish monitoring and evaluation process) seem like they should have been completed already.

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

Clearly describe proposed on-the-ground activities.

If 30% of land area is privately owned, is that area significantly affecting water quality? Coordinators are most effective where there is a large percentage of privately owned land.

Clearly show contributions from cost-share partners.

Comment: