FY 2000 proposal 199608701

Additional documents

199608701 Narrative Narrative
199608701 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFocus Watershed Coordination-Flathead River Watershed
Proposal ID199608701
OrganizationConfederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn S. Ducharme
Mailing addressP.O. Box 278 Pablo, MT 59855
Phone / email4066752700 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Flathead
Short descriptionThis 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 speciesBull trout, westslope cutthroat and all other species residing within the Flathead River drainage.
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

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 IDTitleDescription
9101903 Flathead Watershed Restoration and Monitoring Implements mitigation plan
9101904 Non-native fish removal/Hatchery Production Native/Non-native species interaction research; Offsite mitigation for Flathead Lake
9101901 Flathead Lake Monitoring and Habitat Enhancement Habitat restoration and monitoring.
9410002 Flathead River Native Species Project Native/Non-native species interaction research in the Flathead River
9520500 Flathead River Instream Flow Project Instream habitat restoration

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
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.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999


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.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: N/A

Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


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.

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:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$75,912 $75,912 $75,912

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website