FY07-09 proposal 200726500

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Bitterroot

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: While the subbasin plan will be complete, future costs will include revising and updating the management plan every three years to five years, as per the Council's recommendation.

Termination date: 12/31/2009
Comments:

Final deliverables: A subbasin plan for the Bitterroot watershed will be presented to the Council for review and implementation.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This subbasin has been altered by man and the alteration is believed to have caused a decline in its productivity for valuable fishes. While a worthwhile proposal, it is naive in terms of what needs to be done. Currently, there is not enough collaboration to do this project and not enough science presented for the ISRP to make a “fundable” recommendation. The primary issue is policy related, does the Council want to fund a Bitterroot Subbasin planning effort? If so, the following comments would pertain. The proposal is not linked directly to Fish and Wildlife Program, but to Clean Water Act and other relevant public concerns. Although collaboration is described, details are few and a lack of cost-share suggests limited knowledge of, or buy-in by partners at this point. Further, not citing any plans being used by collaborators, neighboring subbasin plans or Council planning guidance suggests this effort is early in its development. Actions needed to restore lost productivity are difficult to identify in such basins because flushing flows, stable hillslopes, and flood plain dynamics no longer exist as they did in the past. Strategies for improving productivity in comparable basins are not producing desired benefits for fish. Proposers need to become thoroughly familiar with this background and develop innovative new strategies with greater probability for success (e.g., see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208-217 and cited references). Many allied aquatic and terrestrial species are likely to benefit if focal species do. Objectives are clear and measurable, but preliminary to any species benefits that may flow following successful plan development and implementation. Work elements are social and organizational rather than scientific or technical, but are reasonable for the immediate task at hand. Personnel appear well qualified although relatively new to the job. Actual time to be committed by each responsible person is not indicated and subcontract amounts appear inadequate to likely needs. They will likely require assistance from a geomorphologist and population/conservation biologist. Only completion monitoring applies now, but they should plan eventual subbasin wide monitoring. Information transfer is not addressed. The budget seems insufficient for the likely magnitude of the effort, especially lacking substantive cost sharing. Sponsors might benefit from study the Blackfoot subbasin proposal as an example. If the Council wants to pursue this idea, perhaps they could offer one year of planning support to pull the project together and submit a more detailed plan, or fund the plan, with the understanding that additional requests would be entertained after 1 year of satisfactory progress building partnerships, outlining a plan, inventorying useable data, identifying data needs, and building a public process.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: This is a key watershed with rapidly declining conservation opportunities. The sponsors have submitted a worthwhile idea that needs fuller development. The proposal is not linked directly to the Fish and Wildlife Program, but to the Clean Water Act and other relevant public concerns. Although collaboration is described, details are few and a lack of cost-share suggests limited knowledge of, or buy-in by partners at this point. Further, not citing any plans being used by collaborators, neighboring subbasin plans or Council planning guidance suggests this effort is early in its development. Actions needed to restore lost productivity are difficult to identify in such basins because flushing flows, stable hillslopes, and flood plain dynamics no longer exist as they did in the past. Strategies for improving productivity in comparable basins are not producing desired benefits for fish. Proposers need to become thoroughly familiar with this background and develop innovative new strategies with greater probability for success (e.g., see Palmer et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 208-217 and cited references). Many allied aquatic and terrestrial species are likely to benefit if focal species do. Objectives are clear and measurable, but preliminary to any species benefits that may flow following successful plan development and implementation. Work elements are social and organizational rather than scientific or technical, but are reasonable for the immediate task at hand. Personnel appear well qualified although relatively new to the job. They will likely require assistance from a geomorphologist and population/conservation biologist. Only completion monitoring applies now, but they should plan eventual subbasin-wide monitoring. Information transfer is not addressed. Sponsors might benefit from studying the Blackfoot subbasin proposal as an example. Sponsors may eventually be successful in both formulating a fundable proposal for subbasin planning and in achieving the long-term goals of such a plan. This proposal is justified for one year of planning support to pull the project together and submit a more detailed proposal. Additional funding requests would be entertained after one year of satisfactory progress building partnerships, outlining a plan, inventorying useable data, identifying data needs, and building a public process.