FY 2000 proposal 199101903

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: 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.

Comment:

Comments: This project is a component of the Hungry Horse Fisheries Mitigation umbrella (20554), the specific goals of which are to mitigate effects of Hungry Horse dam on native fisheries within the Flathead Lake basin. It is an expensive (roughly $0.5m/year), continuing project that describes a number of specific projects. It is very difficult to determine from the proposal the relative priorities, and their rationale, of the various projects, and how effective they have been (a criticism last year, too). It is also nearly impossible to make such judgments in the format of an annual review. The best mechanism for accomplishing a thorough review, as indicated in reviews of other component projects of the same umbrella, is formation of a visiting committee for simultaneous review of all of the projects. Following such review, and receipt by the various project teams of review comments, these projects should be invited to propose for a longer period (e.g. 3-5 years), during which annual progress reports could be submitted and assessed administratively. In the interim, continued funding of the project at current base levels would seem appropriate.

The program appears to be a model of success judging from their description of past accomplishments and the abstract. The project has a formalized process (but undescribed) to decide on various tactics to restore habitat. The proposal claims that passive restoration is emphasized. "Before-and-after" monitoring of projects is standard (but proposers do not describe how they account for interannual variation in weather). Not surprisingly, as Marotz helps coordinates the Libby Dam and Hungry Horse Dam management teams, the project is attempting to restore the normal pattern of the hydrograph using integrated rule curves for dam releases. Monitoring suggests that their restoration tack has been partially successful at a minimum. The program is to reestablish connections of tributaries to drainages, eliminate exotic species, and restore native fishes in off-site lakes and ponds to alleviate fishing pressure on sensitive native stocks.

To repair riparian damage from cattle grazing and logging, the proposers are allowing large woody debris to set up in a quasi-natural process. Large woody debris are not cabled or anchored. This is the preferred process when damage to private or public property is not anticipated. They are accounting for spatial and temporal variability in their redd counts, a procedure that should be, but is not, standard everywhere. The array of methods used to assess changes in population and community structure is impressive. However, they do not provide evidence of checking for catchability and comparing efficiencies of capture by gear and technique. They are checking for whirling disease and here they recognize that rainbow trout are exotics and potential problems for cutthroat trout via hybridization and competition. Ironically, other proposals (here and in the Kootenai) introduce rainbows as a management tool but are concerned with the status of nonindigenous kokanee salmon.

The proposal was well written and comprehensive, when taken with the umbrella proposal. It was in the midrange of quality of those reviewed. It lists the relevant FWP measures, ESA listings, NMFS hydrosystem opinions, and several specific Montana/Hungry Horse plans. It lists the umbrella and 4 other related projects (two of which are not BPA funded). There is an excellent listing of past accomplishments. The objectives and tasks are good (but more a list of activities), except that more focus on FY2000 is needed. This proposal is more of a multi-year proposal. There is superb cost sharing with many agencies, that raises the total funding by half. The proposal makes use of the umbrella for background, significance, and relationships to other projects. The narrative objectives do not focus on FY2000, but methods do (they are good, extensive). The project is a good candidate for multi-year funding, particularly if more emphasis is placed on native species.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no- Until further deliberation.

General Comments: BPA long term agreements should be attached to the proposal.

Comment:

Very aggressive goals for limited staff.

Great detail on monitoring, impressive biological objectives and past accomplishments.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website