FY 2000 proposal 20008

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: Pre-logging assessment is a critical component of this project. Funding must be obtained as soon as possible to address this time constraint.

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 by the British Columbia Provincial government for funding the monitoring of bull trout habitat in Wigwam River, a tributary of the upper Kootenai (above Lake Kookanusa) in British Columbia.

This is a fairly good proposal for an important piece of work that technically warrants funding more on the status of the population than the quality of the proposal. The "cost share" credited by Montana's projects on bull trout would be paid for by BPA through this proposal (which seems like odd accounting). However, the work needs to be done and it fits as part of the Libby Dam mitigation package. The work is analogous to the headwater work done in the Flathead system (in this case, the headwaters of the Kootenai are in BC). The proposal adequately cites the FWP, FWS bull trout BiOp, and NMFS BiOp. It relates its proposed work to the Montana projects. The relationships between BPA and a pre-logging assessment seem tenuous at first, but the narrative adequately explains the comparative relationship between evaluating logging and dam impacts. There is excellent cost sharing with BC Forest Renewal and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. There is a short but good background write-up. The rationale is good.

Other parts of the proposal are weak. For a monitoring project, the Relationships to other projects section is very weak. It is mentioned that the "Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is already operating two major projects on Koocanusa Reservoir", but there is no description of these projects. The logical question is, why doesn't MDFWP monitor bull trout as part of these projects? In addition, the Proposal objectives section is inadequate. A series of proposed activities is contained therein, but no measurable objectives. The Budget section is, according to the proposal, "self-explanatory" but it is the obligation of the proposer to make the explanation. Finally, Section 9 (Key Personnel) tells nothing about the caliber of persons to be involved with this project.

There is a policy reservation regarding whether BPA/Council should fund work in British Columbia (a question that we refer to Council to resolve). The argument for such funding is that much of the habitat used by bull trout upstream of Libby Dam (and in the reservoir system) is in the Wigwam River in BC. Whether or not this argument is compelling, it does not appear appropriate to review this proposal on the same basis as others in the basin. The Council needs to consider whether defrayal of costs by the B.C. Government is an appropriate use of Program funds, and, if so, what guidelines should be used to prioritize such proposals. This is a good example, however, of where international cooperation can play big dividends. Funding will supplement an existing program on the U.S. side.

Some specific points/questions:

• Wigwam River supports the highest populations of bull trout, a federally listed species, in Koocanusa Reservoir (Libby Dam) and has the highest fisheries priority of the B.C. government. The connection of this population to the rest of the upper Kootenai is recognized by U.S. cooperators (see proposal 9401001).
• Presumably because local conditions may be different from other experiences (e.g., Hungry Horse, Flathead Lake, Lake Billy Chinook), impacts of the dam are unknown. Yet there are other populations in Oregon where adoption of an adfluvial phenotype was highly successful. Can a literature search provide the basis for a comparative study?
• As logging is planned, it is important that the population be monitored for signs of stress. Having said that, there is concern that repeated electrofishing may have deleterious side effects.
• Will reaches have index sites or will sites be selected at random within representative reaches?
• What are the water quality parameters to be monitored? What levels of input will trigger management activity to halt habitat degradation? Are there agreements with the forestry agency or company in place to cease certain operations should indicators trigger a management response?

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: yes

Programmatic Criteria: yes

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones identified.

General Comments: I would like to see some specific plans on how the info will be used in reservoir and forest management. This should be included in ongoing Koocanusa work as a subcontract.

Comment:

Comment: