FY 1999 proposal 199101903

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199101903 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Hungry Horse Dam Mitigation - Watershed Restoration and Monitoring
Proposal ID	199101903
Organization	Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ladd Knotek
Mailing address	490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email	4067525501 / LADD@DIGISYS.NET
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Upper Columbia / Flathead
Short description	Enhance and protect native fish communities in the Flathead Basin through watershed assessments, fish passage improvements, habitat enhancement, off-site fishery restoration, and project- and watershed-level monitoring.
Target species	bull trout (proposed ESA listing) Naturally spawning fish without targeted artificial enhancement, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. westslope cutthroat trout Petitioned for ESA listing. Naturally spawning native fish with targeted artificial enhancement to initiate new wild runs, contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population. mountain whitefish Contributes to rebuilding weak but recoverable native population, restoration through hatchery production or imprint planting to restore wild runs.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 1999 cost
Personnel		$188,098
Fringe		$56,929
Supplies		$65,376
Operating		$18,980
Travel		$15,124
Indirect		$69,255
Subcontractor		$60,493
		$474,255

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$474,255
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$474,255
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule changes are the norm, not the exception in implementing habitat and fish passage projects. Factors such as weather, public scoping, contracting, and permitting make this an adaptive process. Some projects proceed more quickly than expected, others more slowly. We must, therefore, move on many projects simultaneously to assure that some are completed each year. Monitoring, watershed assessment, and research portions of this program are expected to proceed as scheduled.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Fundable

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: This project began in 1992 as a result of a 1991 NPPC amendment adopting the Hungry Horse Mitigation Plan. The Hungry Horse system supports the last intact native species assemblage and the strongest meta-population of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. The project is currently operating on FY 97 dollars and will begin using FY 98 funds ($380,000) in July 1998. The Watershed Technical Workgroup (WTWG) asked what new work would be conducted in FY99 as a result of the work completed in FY 98. Answer: The sponsor has many on-the-ground activities going forward at the same time but each is on a different schedule, some projects lag (in permitting etc.) while other progress quickly. Having many projects in the queue ensures that some are completed each year. This project meets the screening criteria in that it is based on an approved loss assessment and Mitigation Plan and focuses on native species. In terms of information transfer, a Libby and Hungry Horse web site will be the central repository for information . There will also be the Annual Reports, peer-reviewed Project Reports (based on monitoring data), model results, and presentations at professional meetings. The data should also be fed into StreamNet. In addition, this information will be used in the System Operation Request process. Cost-sharing includes contributions from the BOR, USFWS, MDFWP, MSU and U of M.

Questions/Answers:

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Need to provide an explanation of new work in FY99 resulting from FY98 funding.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is an excellent proposal, among the best of the set. It is well connected to the Fish and Wildlife Program and other planning documents. It includes cooperation with related local projects. The work is based on an approved mitigation/implementation plan and seems productive at habitat restoration. The objectives, methods, and monitoring and evaluation look good, although the proposal seems heavy on the monitoring relative to the restoration work. It is difficult to determine which activities are most significant.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$1,715,000	$1,715,000	$1,715,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website