Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Response requested

Comment:

The response requested is for development of a new proposal that is structured according to guidelines and reflects careful consideration of the stated problems and associated needs by resource specialists. For example, the proposal would benefit from participation of improved and stronger fisheries expertise. Proposed actions are assumed to be beneficial without scientific scrutiny or exploration of technical literature, and without a carefully prepared M&E effort. Providing centralized liaison with private landowners is a good idea, and the District’s track record with this is an asset. Coordination is necessary, but success is doubtful if, for example, IDFG is not more involved. No strong linkages or strategic positioning relative to other efforts is apparent. There are no direct fish-related objectives. Methods are "standard," but not necessarily proven and as described, with few technical references, not credible. There is good experimental work to be consulted. Evidently, monitoring will not have a significant role. Aquatic M&E is left as "to be done by IDFG." Initial re-vegetation requires monitoring season by season. No baseline data are mentioned, nor is there recognition of any scientific value from data to be generated or responsibility to contribute it beyond PISCES and annual information/education events. Success will depend on new hires, and the job description does not seem to require the needed scientific background. Consultants will be trusted to develop technical requirements for much of the work, requiring scientifically qualified oversight. This is a good beginning and the District is encouraged to continue to develop the proposal.

State/province recommendation: Not fundable

Review group: Snake

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: Project not prioritized