Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199608701

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 Focus Watershed Coordination-Flathead River Watershed
BPA Project Proposal Number 199608701
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 Lynn S. Ducharme
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 This program fosters “grass roots” public involvement, interagency cooperation and cooperative cost-sharing for habitat restoration to offset impacts to fishery resources in the Flathead watershed.
Target Species Bull trout, westslope cutthroat and all other species residing within the Flathead River drainage.

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: 7.7 A & B pages 7-40 through 7-43, 10.1B, 10.2A.2, 10.2B, 10.2C.1, 10.2C.2, 10.2C.4, 10.2C.5, 10.3A and 10.3D.
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 Fisheries Mitigation Plan (Approved by NPPC) (1991) Hungry Horse Fisheries Implementation Plan (Approved by NPPC)(1993) Middle Clark Fork River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report Flathead River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report South Fork Flathead River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report Swan River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report South Fork of the Flathead River Conservation Agreement Kerr Mitigation Plan/FERC Relicensing documents Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes Tribal Fisheries Management Plan (1993) Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes Draft Forest Management Plan (1996) Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes Comprehensive Resource Plan (1996) Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout (1993) The Relationship Between Land Management Activities and Habitat Requirements of Bull Trout (1998) See Section 6, References

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 Published Dayton Creek Watershed Restoration Progress Report
1998 Contributed cost-share to Small Landowner workshop sponsored by Montana DNRC.
1998 Contributed cost-share to FBC, Voluntary Monitoring Program. Other contributers include Montana Watercourse.
1998 Revised grazing plan, built riparian and headwater fence in East Valley Creek.
1998 Contributed cost-share (along with NRCS, USFWS, Pheasants Forever, Montana Watershed Inc. landowners, and Lake Co. Conservation District in Valley View to exclude stock from two irrigation canals/creeks entering Flathead River.
1998 Received cost-share grant from Fish America Foundation for road obliteration in Valley Creek drainage. This matched federal Jobs in the Woods monies and Salish-Kootenai College equipment time.
1998 Received challenge grant from Bring Back the Natives for on-the-ground work in Valley Creek or Jocko River drainage.

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9101903 Flathead Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Implements mitigation plan No
9101904 Non-native fish removal/Hatchery Production Native/Non-native species interaction research; Offsite mitigation for Flathead Lake No
9101901 Flathead Lake Monitoring and Habitat Enhancement Habitat restoration and monitoring. No
9410002 Flathead River Native Species Project Native/Non-native species interaction research in the Flathead River No
9520500 Flathead River Instream Flow Project Instream habitat restoration No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Identify watershed entities a. The known watershed entities have been identified but this task will be ongoing as new groups and individuals become organized.
1. b. Determine the extent to which these groups or individuals can be involved (ongoing as above).
2. Enhance communication network a. Consult with other agencies and individuals to coordinate efforts thereby avoiding duplication and increasing efficiency. This will also be ongoing throughout the project.
3. Establish watershed forums in DuCharme Creek, Little Bitterroot River, Dayton, Post Creek, and the Jocko River. a. Facilitate the forming of local citizens working groups and provide professional expertise and resources necessary for the working group to create an implementable watershed plan
3. b. Provide for the involvement of volunteers, landowners and educational institutions in the implementation of projects.
4. Evaluate the condition of the watershed and identify limiting factors (not field related as per this project). a. Utilize on-site analytical techniques as well as information within the watershed assessment (to be completed in FY99) to identify and address limiting factors
4. b. Identify gaps in knowledge which hamper management decisions and give rise to future research and data collection needs.
4. c. Identify time frames and prioritization scheme to address limiting factors
5. Coordinate cooperative implementation and funding a. Provide coordination to facilitate watershed based fish and wildlife habitat improvement plans and projects.
5. b. Identify potential federal, state, tribal and private funding sources for implementation of watershed based projects.
5. c. Provide assistance to agencies, private groups and local citizens to find cooperative funding for habitat improvement projects.
5. d. Establish a technical advisory committee as each subwatershed is addressed from governmental and tribal agencies and private consultants.
6. Establish watershed monitoring and evaluation a. Coordinate between CSKT, MFWP, Flathead Basin Commission, and Uof M's Yellow Bay research station and other agencies to establish TMDLs and a drainage wide water quality inventory.
7. Transfer information a. Produce a model watershed plan that will be used by conservation districts, watershed groups, communities and agencies in the future as a guide for watershed planning, funding, and resource management.
8. Local and regional coordination a. Contact BPA and NWPPC Planning staffs as often as needed, but no less that once per quarter to keep them abreast of the progress in the planning and implementation process.
8. b. Coordinate with NRCS, USDA, MFWP, Conservation Districts and others to assure cooperative planning and implementation of watershed planning.
9. Implement temporary and permanent easements and long-term management agreements in key subbasins to protect investments in habitat improvements. a. Work with landowners and federal, state, tribal agencies to create easements and long-term management plans for long term species and habitat protection.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 05/01/97 03/01/07 N/A Ongoing 1.0%
2 05/01/97 03/01/07 N/A Ongoing 3.0%
3 07/01/97 03/01/01 N/A Ongoing 30.0%
4 02/01/00 03/01/07 N/A Completed watershed assessment 30.0%
5 05/01/97 03/01/07 No direct biological objective. Objectives defined on a project specific basis. Ongoing 25.0%
6 01/01/99 03/01/07 No direct biological objective. Objectives defined on a project specific basis. Ongoing as projects are implemented in sub-watersheds 5.0%
7 01/01/00 02/01/01 NA Completion of Focus Watershed Plan 2.0%
8 05/01/97 03/01/07 N/A Ongoing 2.0%
9 01/01/99 03/01/07 No direct biological objective. Objectives defined on a project specific basis. Ongoing 2.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 35,781
Fringe $ 7,400
Supplies $ 719
Operating $ 9,100
Travel $ 2,500
Indirect $ 17,000
Other Implementation dollars $ 30,500
Total Itemized Budget $103,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $103,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $103,000
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
NRCS On-the-ground cost share $ 0 unknown
USFWS On-the-ground cost share $ 0 unknown
CSKT On-the-ground cost share $ 0 unknown
MFWP On-the-ground cost share $ 0 unknown
BOR On-the-ground cost share $ 20,000 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $106,100 $109,300 $112,500 $115,900
Total Outyear Budgets $106,100 $109,300 $112,500 $115,900

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.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Asotin County Conservation District Landowner Steering Committee. 1995. Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan, Asotin County, Washington. Report to Asotin County Conservation District, Asotin County. No
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). 1985. Aquatic Lands Conservation Ordinance 87A. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Pablo, Montana. No
CSKT. 1990. Water Quality Management Ordinance 89B. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. No
CSKT. 1995. Proposed Rules--Surface Water Quality Standards and Antidegradation Policy. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. 45 pp. No
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 1996. Flathead Reservation Comprehensive Resources Plan Volume I. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Pablo, Montana. Yes
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 1996. Flathead Reservation Comprehensive Resources Plan Volume II. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Pablo, Montana. Yes
DosSantos, J.M., C., Hunter, L. Lockard, B. Marotz and J. Vashro. 1992. Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation Implementation Plan. Report to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, and the Confederated Sa Yes
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Board of Directors. 1994. Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. Operations-Action Plan. LaGrande, Oregon. Yes
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 1995. Model Watershed Plan. Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and East Fork of the Salmon River. Report to Bonneville Power Administration. Yes
Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG). 1996. Middle Clark Fork River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. 37 pp. Yes
MBTSG. 1995. Flathead River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. 46 pp. Yes
MBTSG. 1995. South Fork Flathead River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. 33 pp. Yes
MBTSG. 1997. Swan River Drainage Bull Trout Status Report. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. 42 pp. Yes
MBTSG. 1998. The Relationship Between Land Management Activities and Habitat Requirments of Bull Trout. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana. 78 pp. Yes
Tribal Fisheries Program. 1993. Fisheries Management Plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, Montana. 65pp. Yes

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 for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund for one year, with contingency. Subsequent funding contingent on inclusion in an umbrella, definition of importance of the interface between research, mitigation, and public acceptance, and more specificity of the work and results. Include in comprehensive independent science review of all Flathead proposals.

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.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

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: N/A

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
It is difficult to apply integrated technical criteria to coordination projects.

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.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 75,912
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 75,912
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 75,912
Sponsor (Salish & Kootenai Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page