FY 2000 proposal 20028

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: Either MFWP or PCTC could terminate discussion and negotiation of this project at any time. However, MFWP believes this project has an excellent chance of success. This proposal also recognizes that the cost of this project is high and could fail for lack of sufficient funds. MFWP has allocated up to $3,250,000 from the Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund to use as seed money to leverage additional funds. If BPA Fisheries Mitigation Program provides $500,000 up front (and a possibility of using other fiscal-year-end dollars when available), then the project has an increased probability of success. Total costs are unknown at this time but could range up to $10,000,000 depending on project size and terms. We have the opportunity to reduce the project scope to match available funds. However, fund-raising will allow completion of a larger, biologically more meaningful project. Other possible funding sources include: private organizations or other public funds such as MFWP’s wildlife habitat conservation fund, etc. This proposal seeks no additional administrative or operations/maintenance funds from BPA. Administrative needs will be met by the Fisheries Mitigation Program Officer (Brian Marotz) and by the Focus Watershed Coordinator for the Kootenai River (Scott Snelson). These individuals, along with review and input from BPA’s fisheries contracting officer, will provide critical input into the development and implementation of this project. MFWP and PCTC plan to complete this conservation easement by the end of FY 2000. If negotiations break down or if either party withdraws from the process, there would be no need for these funds.

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 partial funding (about 5 percent of the total cost) of purchase of Plum Creek Timber Lands in the Fisher River watershed. Although this is a new proposal, it was also proposed last year. As stated in the proposal, the acquisition of this huge block of land, in addition to the planned acquisition of the Thompson River project, "will result in completion of most, and possibly all, of the wildlife mitigation goals for both Libby and Hungry Horse dams." The current proposal has a reduced BPA commitment and greater commitment by other funding sources (heavily supported by the state of Montana).

It is well written and adequately supports the cost-sharing expenditures by BPA. BPA will be asked for only 5% of the total cost (small but considered critical to stimulate the purchase). The proposal adequately cites the relevant FWP measure, species listings, and 6 other plans. It has a high level of public support. The proposal is well related to other projects under the Montana Libby umbrella (20517) and 4 other projects. There is a massive cost share, with BPA's amount small for the purchase in FY2000. Most planning and financial arrangements seem complete. There is an excellent background, giving high importance to the basin. The rationale for the easement purchase seems excellent and persuasive (the objectives narrative gives more goals). The methods are good and no facilities are required. The cost to BPA has been trimmed from last year's proposal, with a larger percentage now derived from other funds (demonstrating local support). This seems to be a valuable, one-time effort.

It is an example of the old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Limiting development of the area will help establish refuges for wild stocks and prevent further habitat degradation. It will also provide a touchstone or reference point for habitat restoration efforts within the basin. The cost to BPA is very low and the project is cost-effective

The review group considered this to be a very good project addressing the acquisition/protection (by fee title or easement) of wildlife habitat. The Technical and/or scientific background section clearly relates this habitat to benefits for wildlife (both aquatic and terrestrial). The coordination with other agencies and relationship to other projects is a very strong aspect of the proposal. Objectives are well laid out and related to methods. The Budget section is a bit weak, but this is overcome by the strength of the rest of the proposal.

The main negative comment was that the proposers need to clarify the nature of logging activities that could continue on the proposed easement properties and estimate the effects on the fish and wildlife resources intended to be protected. This point was raised in the ISRP's FY1999 proposal review. Despite the large total cost, it is still just an easement, not a purchase.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no-This is not as directed towards fish as the Trestle Creek project. There is an overall benefit to fish in question, and a long term need for restoration before we see fish benefits.

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- There is no long term budget beyond 2000.

General Comments: This is a one time cost. The Wildlife fund will take on monitoring. This commitment is only secure if the wildlife mitigation is also secured.

Comment:

The proposal does not provide enough detail about the terms of the easements. There is considerable concern about activities allowed (i.e. timber management, subdivisions).

Is it appropriate for one BPA project to cost-share with another BPA funded project?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: