FY 2000 proposal 199608720

Additional documents

199608720 Narrative Narrative
199608720 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFocus Watershed Coordination-Kootenai River Watershed
Proposal ID199608720
OrganizationMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (MFWP/CSKT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrian Marotz, Scott Snelson
Mailing address490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionFosters “grass roots” public involvement and interagency cooperation for habitat restoration to offset impacts to the fishery resources in the Kootenai River watershed. Establishes cost-share arrangements with government agencies and private groups.
Target speciesBull trout, Kootenai River White Sturgeon, Inland Redband Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Burbot, Mountain Whitefish
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 Formed or revitalized 5 citizen-based watershed planning organizations for five key sub-drainages in the basin completing one implementable watershed plan for Grave Creek and made important progress on four other plans
1998 Secured FEMA funding ($400,000) for an effort by County, City, homeowners, USFS, NRCS, MFWP, USFWS, Montana DOT, local schools and several private organizations, to reconstruct a major portion of Parmenter Creek to a stable form
1998 Coordinated a FEMA remapping of Libby, Big Cherry, Granite, Parmenter, Flower Creeks with the Libby Area Conservancy District, North Cabinet Conservancy District USACOE and USFS
1998 Coordinated a Rosgen level III and IV geomorphic survey of Libby Creek and collection of cross sectional data needed to run HEC II modeling necessary to develop a channel design which will return much of Libby Creek to its proper functioning condition
1998 Coordinated the development and design of implementable plans to screen bull trout from the Glen Lake Irrigation Ditch on Grave Creek, the most important bull trout spawning trib. in the U.S. portion of the Upper Kootenai.
1998 Instituted and coordinated an international effort with BC Environment to monitor bull trout populations in the Wigwam River /Lake Koocanusa complex
1998 Directed a morphological survey of the unstable lowest three miles of Grave Creek necessary to design a naturally functioning channel. The survey and design will give the local watershed group a critical tool to garner funding to implement the design.
1998 Participated in intial planning for the rehabilitation of the tributaries to the Pleasant Valley Fisher River on the Lost Trail and Monk properties by the USFWS and NRSC
1998 Directed surveys of upper Bobtail Creek necessary to design stream reconstruction to reduce bank erosion and improve habitat in cooperation with the Bobtail Creek Watershed group
1998 Participated in developing a basin wide water quality monitoring strategy and "metadatabase" development as part of the Kootenai River Network (a private, non-profit forum supported by FWC includes state, provincial and private interests from basin)
1998 Negotiated a 1.25 mile riparian corridor and channel reconstruction of Therriault Creek where the creek is currently deeply incised, and unstable (part of Tobacco River Drainage which also includes the important Grave and Sinclair Creeks)
1998 Negotiated for the fencing and riparian planting of several miles of overgrazed westslope cutthroat trout habitat on Young Creek (important recovery tributary to reservoir) and won approval to reconstruct a one mile segment of channelized stream.
1998 Initiated the halt of tributary stocking of fingerling westslope cutthroat trout into Young Creek and replaced this with remote site incubator (RSI) seeding of the creek.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8806500 IDFG-Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations White Sturgeon Recovery
8806400 KTOI – White Sturgeon Experimental Aquaculture White Sturgeon Recovery
9404900 Kootenai River Ecosystem Improvement Study Ecosystem Function
9101903 Hungry Horse Reservoir Mitigation Sister mitigation project on Flathead System- exchange information and techniques and occasionally share personnel.
9401002 Flathead River Native Species Project Sister mitigation project on Flathead System- exchange information and techniques and occasionally share personel.
3874700 Streamnet Geographic Information Services Unit Providing data layer updating and development for managers and mitigation efforts and provides mapping services for local watershed planning and research
9401001 MFWP- Libby Reservoir Excessive Drawdown Mitigation Excessive Drawdown Mitigation is the mechanism by which local watershed plans developed by the FWC (project # 9608720) are funded and implemented. EDDM also provides GIS support for developing and prioritizing watershed plans
8346500 Libby and Hungry Horse Modeling Technical Analysis Provides predictions of impacts of various river and reservoir operations necessary for watershed planning and native species recovery
8346700 Mitigation For The Construction And Operation Of Libby Dam (LDM) EDDM LDM in planning mitigation activities and provides personnel when larger crews are necessary. EDDM provides GIS and microimaging otolith, vertibrae and scale reading support to LDM.
Purchase Conservation Easement from Plum Creek Timber Company in the Fisher Collect and summarize the geomorphic and fisheries data required for determination of the bandwidth necessary to protect fisheries resources in intact stream/riparian corridors in the Fisher River Drainage.

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 0.8 FTE Watershed Coordinator (0.2 FTE Project 9404900) 0.2 FTE Lakes Coordinator $31,091
Fringe $7,980
Supplies Office supplies, copies, computer software, etc. $2,950
Operating Telephone and internet fees $1,560
Capital Purchase of Conservation Easements and Long-term management agreements for riparian corridor protect $24,000
NEPA Publishing documents, meeting room rental, mailing etc. $5,000
Travel Mileage (5400 miles @ .31/mile) $1,674
Indirect 17.2 percent $14,664
Subcontractor Stream design: 120 hours @ $50, Land appraisals: 2 @ $5000 $11,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$99,918
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$99,919
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
US Army Corps of Engineers Program costshare 75/25 to reduce flooding impact and rehabilitate riparian/wetland habitat. FWC negotiating with ACOE on projects on Parmenter, Flower and Libby Creeks (please also see project budget for 9401000) $0 unknown
FEMA As Second phase of "Project Impact" flood hazard reduction in Lincoln County ($400,000 committed in 1998 see below) to extend the Parmenter Creek Rehab. project to Flower and Libby Creeks $0 unknown
Montana Dept. of Transportation Cost-share as part of wetland banking credits program. Program partially or wholey funds rehab projects. FWC is in process of negotiating credit/funding for Libby , Grave, Flower, Parmenter $0 unknown
USFWS Cost-share with Partners for Wildlife program 75/25 cost-share. FWC negotiating for funding for stream corridor easements and stream rehab and reconstruction on Sinclair, Therriault, Grave Creeks and the Tobacco River $0 unknown
Ministry of Environment-British Columbia FWC has negotited a multi-year study of bull trout migration pattern and metapopulation dynamics in which BC Environment purchases radio transmitters ($11,000) and MFWP project # 9401000 does the telemetry $0 unknown
Ministry of Environment-British Columbia FWC has negotited a multi-year study of bull trout migration and metapopulation dynamics in which BC Environment provide supervisory and logistical support for operation of the Wigwam River migration trap and BPA covers contract costs for operation $0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Achievement of objective associated with willingness of local governments, public support and permitting processes. Also CBFWA prioritization and NPPC approval.

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. 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 the Kootenai projects.

Comments: This is a proposal for watershed coordination of fish and wildlife projects in the Kootenai subbasin. This is a well-written proposal that warrants funding. Its quality fell in the midrange of projects reviewed. It is not included in the Kootenai umbrella, which is especially puzzling for a coordination proposal. The proposal cites relevant FWP measures, the white sturgeon BiOp, the NMFS hydrosystem BiOp, ESA listings, and mitigation/implementation plans for Libby Dam. It cites nine existing and one proposed project as related, including both Libby and Hungry Horse mitigation efforts. There is an excellent history of coordination and facilitation that reflects useful opportunism. The objectives/tasks of the project are good, and the schedules/costs seem reasonable. There is cost sharing, although funds are not given in all cases. There is an excellent background narrative. The rationale/significance narrative does not make clear why this project does not join other projects (much of the information is given in the background narrative). There is a good, productive history. Given that the stated coordination and integration are actually represented in the subbasin umbrella, this project could be a good candidate for multi-year funding.

The proposers are following the Flathead model, but not completely. This incomplete mentoring explains the greater variation in the quality of the proposals between the Flathead group (generally good) to the Kootenai group (generally fair, but a few were impressive). They are intelligently working on the human dimension issues first: watershed councils are coordinating local, private, state, federal and Canadian interests. The review group was impressed by the Flathead model, and key staff are central to both the Flathead work and that proposed for the Kootenai. Undoubtedly what was learned on the Flathead will lead to quicker progress here, depending upon public support and that of the cooperators.

The reviewers noted some sticky issues that the Focus Group will have to address: The key is to get this group to accept that rainbow trout (redbands) and kokanee salmon are probably exotics, at least according to Robert Behnke (1992). They should not be above the great falls of the Upper Columbia. Hybridization by rainbow trout with westslope cutthroat trout is a serious threat to the native cutthroat. Proposers have done a good job in identifying the importance of the transboundary aspects of the population structure of bull trout (Wigwam Creek) and burbot, although the term metapopulation is used too loosely. We do not know if the processes of the formal definition of metapopulation dynamics as defined by Richard Levins apply either, and a coming publication by Jason Dunham and Bruce Reiman suggests that metapopulation dynamics vary from the model originally described by Levin.

Bull trout in Idaho do not disperse and recolonize well.

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? The side-effects of using hatchery stocks to supplement wild spawners should be well considered. Hatchery stocks can increase intraspecific competition if food is limited. Essentially, the use of supplementation implicitly argues that the greatest bottleneck for the population is reproduction, that space and productivity are not a problem. It has already been noted in some of the proposals that, indeed, productivity is a key issue.

If kokanee are exotic, planting them to provide additional forage for sturgeon should be approached with caution, if at all. The literature on feeding by white sturgeon indicates that their tastes are broad. If they can swallow it, it will be swallowed.

The project should be included in an in-depth peer review of all projects in the Kootenai subbasin. This project is on a good track and it should benefit from such a review.

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 the Integrated Technical Criteria to coordination projects.

Some of the objectives (e.g., compile information on limiting factors, establish monitoring and evaluation process) seem like they should have been completed already.

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress).

Clearly describe proposed on-the-ground activities.

If 30% of land area is privately owned, is that area significantly affecting water quality? Coordinators are most effective where there is a large percentage of privately owned land.

Clearly show contributions from cost-share partners.

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]