Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199101901

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Flathead Lake Monitoring and Habitat Enhancement
BPA Project Proposal Number 199101901
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) CSKT

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Barry Hansen
Mailing Address P.O. Box 278
City, State, Zip Pablo, MT 59855
Phone 4066752700
Fax 4066752739
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Columbia
Subbasin Flathead
Short Description Implement and monitor fisheries improvement activities within the Flathead Indian Reservation portion of the Flathead Lake basin. Research factors limiting successful application of mitigation measures within Flathead Lake.
Target Species Westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 10.3
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Bull Trout ESA Listing (63 FR 31647) Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Petitioned for ESA Listing)(63 FR 31691)
Other Planning Document References Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation Plan (Approved by NPPC)(1991) Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Implementation Plan (Approved by NPPC)(1993) Kerr Mitigation Plan/FERC Relicensing documents Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Fisheries Management Plan (1993) Flathead River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group)(1995)

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): resident

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1998 Implementation: Channel reconstruction in Skidoo Creek to allow passage of fish through a culvert barrier.
1998 Planning: Progress Report summarizing data collected in Dayton Creek for the purpose of identifiing restoration priorities.
1998 Planning: Coordination with MFWP in the preparation and submittal to NPPC of the Libby Mitigation Plan, Project # 9500400.
1998 Monitoring: Completion of six months of the yearlong Flathead Lake Creel survey.
1998 Monitoring: Annual summary report of monitoring of the results of the kokanee supplementation experiment.
1995 Implementation: Reconstruction of groundwater seepage on Polson Golf Course into a stream channel flowing into Flathead Lake.
1994 Monitoring: Lake-wide yearlong creel survey

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9608701 Focus Watershed Coordination - Flathead River Watershed Directly assists the accomplishment of project objectives by coordinating with agencies and landowners to implement mitigation measures. No
9101904 Hungry Horse Dam Wildlife Mitigation Co-sponsor of Dayton Creek restoration project and other possible conservation easements. No
20554 Hungry Horse Fisheries Mitigation Umbrella Yes
9101903 Flathead Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Yes
9101904 Non-native Fish Removal / Hatchery Production Yes
9410002 Flathead River Native Species Project Yes
9502500 Flathead River Instream Flow Project Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Monitoring: Determine relative abundance of bull and cutthroat trout in Flathead Lake. This serves as the measure of success in mitigating loss of these species in Flathead Lake. a. Annual fixed-location, timing, and intensity gillnetting during spring that has been conducted since 1981.
2. Implementation: Improve habitat conditions and biological productivity in direct tributaries of Flathead Lake to replace recruitment losses attributable to Hungry Horse Dam. b. Comprehensive watershed restoration (all activities that improve spawning and rearing habitat and reduce pollutant discharge to Flathead Lake)
2. c. Correct stream crossing problems, pursue management changes in riparian grazing, implement water conservation measures, and correct degraded channel reaches in Dayton Creek in cooperation with MFWP
2. d. Correct remaining passage problem, and plant cutthroat eggs in Skidoo Creek.
2. e. Monitor adult cutthroat trout returns and plant cutthroat eggs in Polson Spring Creek.
3. Monitoring: Evaluate parameters of lake trout biology (fecundity, growth, age and length at maturity, cohort strength, and mortality in Flathead Lake to monitor changes in the abundance of this predator. f. Annual, lakewide, random location, 10-mesh, gillnetting conducted in October.
4. Monitoring: Evaluate success of westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout releases in off-site reservoirs. g. Measure growth rate, survival past first year of release, and return to creel in stocked reservoirs
5. Research: Quantify nutrient, zooplankton, and Mysis relicta dynamics in Flathead Lake as part of a comprehensive study to determine how to mitigate losses of native species. h. Measure water temperature at two sites within each of 10 strata biweekly in Flathead Lake.
5. i. Measure nutrient levels at one site within each of five strata monthly in Flathead Lake.
5. j. Sample zooplankton at three sites within 15 strata biweekly in Flathead Lake.
5. k. Sample Mysis relicta at three sites within 15 strata monthly in Flathead Lake.
5. l. Quantify stomach contents of a subsample of Mysis relicta collected from each stratum for use in bioenergetics model.
5. m. Correlate spatial and temporal abundance of zooplankton and Mysis relicta with limnological variables.
5. . Note to Reviewer: Under separate funding the total fish community will be sampled within the same physical framework as used in Tasks h-k, and correlated with the lower trophic level information.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 04/01/00 05/01/07 None, this is a monitoring task designed to measure the success of habitat improvements Ongoing 10.0%
2 10/01/99 09/01/07 Change in redd number, in-migrant adults, or out-migrant juveniles Ongoing 30.0%
3 10/01/99 11/01/99 None have been determined at this time. This is also a monitoring task that will measure the success of agency-driven objectives for lake trout reduction. Ongoing 15.0%
4 10/01/99 09/01/00 Yes, 1) 20% or greater annual incremental growth rate, 2) 10% or greater of population composed of 2nd year fish, 3) 30% or greater annual return to creel Ongoing 5.0%
5 10/01/99 09/01/00 None, this is a research task designed to determine the food web limitations presently restricting the mitigation of losses of adfluvial trout. This is a two year project 40.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 0.95 FTE $ 34,000
Fringe $ 6,000
Supplies $ 8,000
Operating $ 2,500
NEPA Will be conducted by Project 9608701 $ 0
Travel $ 2,000
Indirect $ 16,000
Subcontractor University of Montana, Flathead Lake Biological Station $ 26,500
Total Itemized Budget $ 95,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $ 95,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $ 95,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Total fish community monitoring in Flathead Lake $ 50,000 unknown
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Utah State University Bioenergetic analysis of food web interactions in Flathead Lake that are limiting successful mitigation of losses of adfluvial trout. $ 30,000 unknown
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Total fish community monitoring in Flathead Lake $ 50,000 unknown
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Lake trout population modelling $ 10,000 unknown
University of Montana under contract to Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Quantification of lower trophic levels in Flathead Lake $ 30,000 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $ 95,000 $ 73,200 $ 75,350 $ 77,600
Total Outyear Budgets $ 95,000 $ 73,200 $ 75,350 $ 77,600

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: None

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Beauchamp, D.A. 1996. Estimating predation losses under different lake trout population sizes and kokanee stocking scenarios in Flathead Lake. Report prepared for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. No
Carty, D., W. Fredenberg, L. Knotek, M. Deleray, and B. Hansen. 1997. Hungry Horse Dam fisheries mitigation: Kokanee stocking and monitoring in Flathead Lake-1996. BPA Contract No. DOE/BP-60559-3, Project No.91-019-01, 91-019-03, 91-019-04. USFWS No
Ducharme, L., B. Hansen, and L. Knotek. 1998. Dayton Creek watershed progress report: May 1997-June 1998. Prepared by Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Pablo, Montana. Yes
Deleray, M. W. Fredenberg, and B. Hansen. 1995. Kokanee stocking and monitoring, Flathead Lake - 1993 and 1994. BPA Contract No. DE-A170-87BP65903, Project No. 91-19-1. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, Montana. No
Ehrhart, R.C. and P.L. Hansen. 1998. Successful strategies for grazing cattle in riparian zones. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4. Riparian and Wetland Research Program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 48 pp. No
Evarts, L., B. Hansen, and J. DosSantos. 1994. Flathead Lake angler survey. BPA Contract No. DE-B179-92BP60479, Project No. 91-19-1. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. No
Hansen, B., J. Cavigli, M. Deleray, W. Fredenberg, and D. Carty. 1996. Hungry Horse Dam fisheries mitigation: kokanee stocking and monitoring in Flathead Lake - 1995. BPA Contract No. DE-A170-87BP65903, Project No. 91-19, 91-19-01, 91-19-03, 91-19-0 No
Hansen, B. 1996. Summary of Work to Develop Polson Golf Course Spring Creek to Benefit the Flathead Lake Fishery, Report to Hungry Horse Interagency Group, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. No
Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group. 1995. Flathead River drainage bull trout status report. Prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. 46pp. Yes
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 1991. Fisheries mitigation plan for losses attributable to the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam. MFWP and CSKT, Kalispell, Montana. Yes
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 1993. Hungry Horse Dam fisheries mitigation implementation plan. MFWP and CSKT, Kalispell. No
McIntyre, J. 1998. An assessment of bull trout and lake trout interactions in Flathead Lake, Montana. A report to the Montana bull trout restoration team; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Polson, Montana. No
Proper functioning condition work group. 1993. Riparian area management, Process for assessing proper functioning condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. No
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund in part, for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund in part, for one year. The objective to quantify the trophic level (University of Montana) is not sufficiently described to justify funding at $35K. The set of Flathead proposals needs a comprehensive review by independent scientists, via a visiting committee. The ISRP suggests that funding for the trophic-level objective be deferred until the suggested comprehensive review can be conducted, and that interim funding continue at the current level. The project would be a likely candidate for multi-year review cycle if the proposal included a better description of habitat to be recovered and had biologically measurable objectives.

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?

CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

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

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
The stated goal is implementation but the project monitors activities beyond the described restoration activities.

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.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
$ 95,000

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Fund. The responses adequately cover the concerns of the ISRP panel, especially the UM subcontract for trophic studies. The proposers and the ISRP agree that the proposal format does not do justice to this multi-faceted project, and that the more thorough review recommended by the ISRP is preferable. Considering the small cost and integral nature of the subcontract to the mitigation strategy, it warrants funding.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
$ 95,000
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (Salish & Kootenai Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page