Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Project Number:
2002-003-00
Title:
Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Summary:
Consistent with the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, this project follows the logical progression towards habitat restoration outlined in the Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation Implementation Plan approved by the NWPPC in 1993. The Flathead River Subbasin Plan identifies the protection of habitats for these populations as one of the most critical needs in the subbasin and directs actions to offset these losses.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Columbia Flathead 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $108,659 $108,659 $51,061 $51,061 $48,209

General $108,659 $51,061 $51,061 $48,209
FY2017 (Current) $108,659 $108,659 $108,659 $108,659 $31,063

General $108,659 $108,659 $108,659 $31,063
FY2018 (Next) $0 $1 $1 $0

General $0 $1 $1 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $2,500,000 $1,815,934 $1,815,934 $1,815,934

General $2,500,000 $1,815,934 $1,815,934 $1,815,934
FY2017 (Current) $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $890,466 $890,466 $476,466

General $2,500,000 $890,466 $890,466 $476,466
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

General $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-May-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Capital $2,500,000 From: General June 23 2016 06/23/2016
FY2016 Expense $108,659 From: General FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Capital $2,500,000 From: General June 23 2016 06/23/2016
FY2017 Expense $108,659 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 0 %
FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 16 %
FY2008 10 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004425 Bonneville Power Administration FY09 Resident Fish Habitat Land Acquisitions Active $9,385,802 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004803 Bonneville Power Administration FY08 Resident Fish Habitat Land Acquisitions Active $4,217,842 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-005761 Bonneville Power Administration Land & preacquisition Active $1,234,127 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005791 Bonneville Power Administration Land Acquisition - 2011 Active $4,068,146 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006300 Bonneville Power Administration Land Acquisitions - Salish-Kootenai Active $6,370,226 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007168 Bonneville Power Administration Capital FY13 - Land Acquisitions- Salish-Kootenai Active $1,596,594 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007494 Bonneville Power Administration 2014 Capital Land Acquisitions Active $2,196,196 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008505 Bonneville Power Administration FY15 Capital Land Acquisitions Active $490,965 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008956 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 Capital Land Acquisition Active $1,815,934 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-009450 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 Land Acquisitions Active $890,466 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-009888 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
22937 SOW Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes 2002-003-00 SECURE AND RESTORE FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT History $28,311 5/20/2005 - 2/28/2006
27583 SOW Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes 200200300 CAP SECURE & RESTORE FISH HABITAT History $62,520 3/31/2006 - 9/30/2006
27724 SOW Skillings Connolly Inc CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI, FISH ENHANCEMENT PROJECT History $15,000 5/23/2006 - 12/28/2006
BPA-005032 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Active $199,753 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005511 Bonneville Power Administration FY11 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Active $75,331 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006201 Bonneville Power Administration Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Active $62,315 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006864 Bonneville Power Administration Expense FY13 - Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Active $42,258 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007585 Bonneville Power Administration Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Active $25,456 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008135 Bonneville Power Administration Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribe FY 15 Active $29,691 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008571 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Task Order - Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootanai Tribes Active $31,713 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74126 SOW Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes 2002-003-00 EXP SECURE & RESTORE F&W HABITAT Issued $73,659 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-009449 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 TBL Task Order Active $35,000 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:9
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:39
On time:8
Avg Days Late:48

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
22937 27583 2002-003-00 SECURE AND RESTORE FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes 05/2005 05/2005 History 3 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
35813 39495, 44646, 49933, 55869, 58888, 62807, 66991, 71166, 74126 200200300 EXP SECURE & RESTORE F&W HABITA Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes 10/2007 10/2007 Pending 36 36 3 0 1 40 97.50% 0
BPA-004803 FY08 Resident Fish Habitat Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004425 FY09 Resident Fish Habitat Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005761 Land & preacquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005032 FY10 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005511 FY11 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005791 Land Acquisition - 2011 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006300 Land Acquisitions - Salish-Kootenai Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006201 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006864 Expense FY13 - Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007168 Capital FY13 - Land Acquisitions- Salish-Kootenai Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007585 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007494 2014 Capital Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008135 Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootenai Tribe FY 15 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008505 FY15 Capital Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008571 TBL Task Order - Secure F&W Habitat, Salish and Kootanai Tribes Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008956 FY16 Capital Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009449 FY17 TBL Task Order Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009450 FY17 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 39 40 3 0 2 45 95.56% 0


Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2002-003-00
Completed Date: 4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The response addressed the key ISRP concerns. The scoring system for habitat and cost are simple and relatively comprehensive, and with review from biologists during a site visit, should allow ranking parcels by their benefits to fish and the relative costs to achieve these benefits. 

Likewise, with regard to climate change, the ISRP agreed that selecting properties that have features making them resilient to increased temperatures, and increased variability of temperature, flow, and other disturbances, will make them as resistant to climate change as possible. 

A few comments about the criteria should be considered as the sponsors move forward. The numbers below refer to the criteria.

Biological Criteria

1. Is overwinter habitat not often limiting for the resident fish? If so, should its importance be scored higher?

3. This is apparently a new criterion, and groundwater is an important consideration. However, if the depth to groundwater is not known, then some of the categories are not mutually exclusive. Also, is groundwater measured next to the stream,at the boundary between floodplain and uplands, or where?

5d. This criterion seems to contradict the statement above it that all parcels must include at least one river bank. That is, if they don't then they aren't even considered for scoring.

Cost Criteria - If the minimum score for each of the four criteria is 1.0, then is the minimum total score not 4.0, instead of 4.5?

The ISRP also felt that connectivity and adjacency could be given more weight in the criteria, and in ranking parcels. For example, the targeted resident fish generally need multiple habitats that are dispersed throughout watersheds, so the importance of any one segment of stream or river may depend on whether native species can reach it. Likewise, the benefits of one parcel may be greatly increased if it provides suitable summer habitat but is also adjacent to another protected parcel with winter habitat. 

In contrast, it may also be important to know whether nonnative species can reach the site or whether they are limited by barriers to connectivity. That is, sometimes lack of connectivity can be a good thing. This is partly addressed in Biological Criterion 1d but probably deserves its own criterion.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results 

The ISRP is pleased with efforts by the two sponsors to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia River Basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002 using about $27.5 million, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat.

 

First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This joint ongoing project between MFWP and CSKT requests $24 million to continue acquiring lands by fee title or conservation easement to protect forever habitat for adfluvial and resident bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Flathead River basin, Montana. This work is mitigation for habitat lost owing to Hungry Horse Dam. 

First, the ISRP applauds the two sponsors on their efforts to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia Basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat. The presentation to the ISRP showed several properties acquired, and presented a brief list of the criteria used to select lands for acquisition. However, these criteria, both for the 1) ecological/mitigation value and 2) the cost/benefit value, were not presented in the proposal. Moreover, this same request has apparently been made repeatedly by ISRP, yet no information has been forthcoming. In the “Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations” the sponsors indicate that they have developed the criteria and a scoring system.

The ISRP is excited about the opportunity for the program to continue to purchase lands, or conservation easements, as one of the most effective ways to protect habitat to help recover the threatened salmonids in this basin. The ISRP also understands that much of work depends on opportunity to purchase parcels, and that this is sensitive to both the release of information and timing. However, the ISRP requires a response on four key points:

  1. What are the specific qualitative and quantitative criteria that provide the template against which different properties are compared, both for ecological/mitigation and cost/benefit purposes?

  2. How are these criteria scored? The ISRP needs to see the explicit criteria and scoring metrics used.
  1. How are two key emerging limiting factors, increased climate change and variability, and exotic species, considered in this scoring system?

For example, future climate change and variability, or invasions by a non-native plant or fish, may make a property that is currently valuable no longer a high priority for acquisition. Much trout habitat will be lost as water warms, and fish assemblages will likely shift to species like smallmouth bass in the next 70 years (Wenger et al. 2011, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci). Although the ISRP agrees that much can be done to decrease these effects with riparian habitat protection and watershed restoration, it will be important to develop basic predictions of what habitats will remain suitable into the future. How does the scoring system account for these factors?

  1. It was unclear how the budget was planned and the total cost determined. The ISRP understands that many acquisitions are opportunistic, but more information is needed here.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results 

As described above, the ISRP is pleased with efforts by the two sponsors to collaborate actively on this project. This level of cooperation and collaboration is rare in the Columbia basin. The project has so far protected 35 km of streams since 2002 using about $27.5 million, including 6000 acres of riparian habitat. Some of the parcels are key components of the Jocko River restoration effort (see the Jocko River Master Plan) and others link to the River to Lake Initiative on the Flathead River mainstem upstream from Flathead Lake. Overall, ISRP members were especially impressed with the ongoing acquisitions in the Jocko River basin as contributing important fish habitat.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 1:25:38 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (3/8/2012)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-NPCC-20130807
Project: 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2002-003-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through 2017.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-003-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Habitat acquisition and restoration for resident fish in mitigation for Hungry Horse, credited to BPA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-003-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 9/14/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Land
Comment: Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The response is not adequate. The sponsors do not seem to understand the nature of a funding proposal. They are defensive about having to supply needed information for a technical evaluation of their project. Reviewers suggest that if their proposal is "substantiated by the science," as the authors say, then it is the obligation to outline that science, as they understand it. Apparently there have been no results from the 2002 funding. Their strategy of land acquisition for ecosystem protection is fine, but the proposal must go beyond that. The response gives statements about what they intend, but these are not given as measurable objectives. It is understandable that they do not want to show their hand on specific properties, but the objectives for a generic property can be given (in the context of the paper cited in the ISRP review, which was intended to be helpful for formulating a response). Development of criteria for selecting properties ought to have been the first objective for the 2002 funding, and given as results in this proposal. Ironically, many of the comments in the response, if presented in proposal format and not as a criticism of the ISRP and its reviewers, could have constituted several elements in a logical proposal and useful response.

As the ISRP commented, this project has elements that make it a very worthwhile. The problem is that the sponsors have inadequately presented it and have shown no progress from the previous funding. These deficiencies give a technical reviewer no justification for recommending it. A defensive response criticizing the ISRP reviewers is not helpful. Sponsors of this proposal need to organize their approach and thoughts regarding this process and develop a sound, science-based proposal.

Other issues include the lack of justification for acquiring properties based on limiting factors. They need to come with criteria for future acquisitions. What criteria did they use for the 2.36 km of credited property they have already purchased?
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-003-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-003-00 - Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Funding contingent on Council review of revised proposal, with improved selection criteria and objectives. Revised proposal due end of December, 06. Determine if expense element is needed.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Lynn DuCharme Project Lead Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes
Cecilia Brown Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Katie Mcdonald Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Snyder Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration