FY07-09 proposal 200723500
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Proposal to Create a Sub-Basin Plan for the Blackfoot River Sub-Basin |
| Proposal ID | 200723500 |
| Organization | Trout Unlimited |
| Short description | In this proposal, Trout Unlimited will coordinate a planning effort to create a sub-basin plan for the Blackfoot River sub-basin. |
| Information transfer | As a completed sub-basin plan, it will be available electronically through the CBFWA Fish and Wildlife Program. The sub-basin plan will also be widely distributed through the Blackfoot River basin, especially among those involved in restoration efforts. Finally, a specfic goal of this planning proposal is to develop ways to host the monitoring data on accessible websites so that interested parties can benefit from the monitoring and evaluation data collected through the planning process. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Stan Bradshaw | Trout Unlimited | sbradshaw@tu.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Stan Bradshaw | Trout Unlimited | sbradshaw@tu.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Blackfoot
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackfoot River Watershed |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull Troutsecondary: Westslope Cutthroat
Additional: grizzly bear
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Create a Sub-Basin Plan | This sub-basin plan will identify biological objectives for key aquatic species (bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout) and wildlife (grizzly bears), and describe the priority strategies to address the factors limiting these species' populations in the basin. | None | The primary strategies to address factors limiting the key species of concern (bull trout), will likley be streamflow restoration, riparian habitat restoration, and water quality improvement. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Coordination of sub-basin planning process | Ryen Aasheim will coordinate and ensure that the public process, wildlife component, and analysis of the restoration action plan is completed in a timely fashion. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $17,820 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Public Process for Sub-Basin Plan | This public outreach and education process will ensure that the sub-basin plan is developed in an open, public process | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Produce Final Sub-Basin Plan | This task will involve tracking the first draft of the sub-basin plan, and subsequently writing and editing the final sub-basin plan | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $8,500 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Produce Wildlife Component of Sub-basin Plan | Colloborative, multi-stakeholder process to develop wildlife component of sub-basin plan | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $17,500 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Critical evaluation of monitoring and evaluation data and methodologies | TU will take the lead in performing a critical evaluation of collected monitoring and evaluation data to ensure that the correct methodologies are identified and that the correct prioritization of restoration activities has been completed. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $41,580 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | contracted services-wildlife planning | $5,833 | $5,833 | $5,834 |
| Other | contracted services-outreach | $3,000 | $2,000 | $3,000 |
| Personnel | Ryen Aasheim | $19,800 | $19,800 | $19,800 |
| Personnel | Stan Bradshaw | $3,500 | $1,500 | $3,500 |
| Totals | $32,133 | $29,133 | $32,134 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $93,400 |
| Total work element budget: | $93,400 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLM | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| DNRC | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| DU | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| FVLT | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| FWP | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| MLR | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| RMF | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| TNC | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| TU | FTE | $700 | $400 | $2,900 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USFS | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USFWS | FTE | $512 | $512 | $512 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $5,820 | $5,520 | $8,020 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: No funds being requested for FY 2010 or 2011 |
Future O&M costs: TU (the project sponsor) does not forsee requesting funds for this project beyond 2009.
Termination date: 09/30/2009
Comments: TU (the project sponsor) intends that this project wil be complete by the end of fiscal year 2009.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $45,000 | $45,000 | $0 | $90,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $45,000 | $45,000 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: Funding for two fiscal years only, plan to be delivered by end of fiscal year 08. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The primary issue is policy related: does the Council need a subbasin plan for these areas? If they do, this is a fundable proposal and it is advisable to expand the plan to include the Clark Fork/Bitterroot Basins. A current proposal for the Bitterroot is not as well developed as this one. This is a good proposal for a subbasin plan, and they have the capability to create it: most of the work has already been done. The methods are appropriate and consistent with those used to develop earlier subbasin plans. The results should increase the effectiveness of future projects and provide a model of collaborative restoration. This project will leverage existing work, at very reasonable cost with almost 50% cost share from existing partners. Further, this is not anticipated to be an unending obligation, just a 1-term project. It is not clear that the Tribes are as involved as they could be, but this is noted in the proposal. There is no stated relationship to other BPA projects, but the proposal relates to adjacent sub-basin plans as well as a number of efforts undertaken by partners using funds other than those from BPA. Planning objectives are clear, measurable and feasible in the time proposed. As the sponsors develop methods and strategies, they need to assure they are based on sound scientific evidence that they will, in fact, increase distribution and abundance of the target species. Human activity is believed to have caused a decline in this system’s production of valuable fishes. Actions needed to restore lost productivity are difficult to identify because flushing flows, stable hillslopes, and flood plain dynamics no longer exist as they did in the past. Strategies for improving productivity in similar basins are not producing desired benefits for fish. Sponsors of this proposal need to be thoroughly familiar with all such strategies and develop innovative new ones with greater probabilities for success (e.g., see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208-217). All exotic species should be assessed as potential threats to the natives. The monitoring and evaluation component is a major strength of this project, proposing to link a number of current and future efforts in the subbasin with a unique, integrated monitoring scheme. It seems highly likely that focal species and other associated species will benefit as projects come on-line that are carefully prioritized and planned and whose results are monitored.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The primary issue is policy related: does the Council need a subbasin plan for these areas? If they do, this is a fundable proposal and it is advisable to expand the plan to include the Clark Fork/Bitterroot Basins. A current proposal for the Bitterroot is not as well developed as this one. This is a good proposal for a subbasin plan, and they have the capability to create it: most of the work has already been done. The methods are appropriate and consistent with those used to develop earlier subbasin plans. The results should increase the effectiveness of future projects and provide a model of collaborative restoration. This project will leverage existing work, at very reasonable cost with almost 50% cost share from existing partners. Further, this is not anticipated to be an unending obligation, just a 1-term project. It is not clear that the Tribes are as involved as they could be, but this is noted in the proposal. There is no stated relationship to other BPA projects, but the proposal relates to adjacent sub-basin plans as well as a number of efforts undertaken by partners using funds other than those from BPA. Planning objectives are clear, measurable and feasible in the time proposed. As the sponsors develop methods and strategies, they need to assure they are based on sound scientific evidence that they will, in fact, increase distribution and abundance of the target species. Human activity is believed to have caused a decline in this system’s production of valuable fishes. Actions needed to restore lost productivity are difficult to identify because flushing flows, stable hillslopes, and flood plain dynamics no longer exist as they did in the past. Strategies for improving productivity in similar basins are not producing desired benefits for fish. Sponsors of this proposal need to be thoroughly familiar with all such strategies and develop innovative new ones with greater probabilities for success (e.g., see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208-217). All exotic species should be assessed as potential threats to the natives. The monitoring and evaluation component is a major strength of this project, proposing to link a number of current and future efforts in the subbasin with a unique, integrated monitoring scheme. It seems highly likely that focal species and other associated species will benefit as projects come on-line that are carefully prioritized and planned and whose results are monitored.