Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Capital

Recommended budgets: FY07: $753,416 | FY08: $704,185 | FY09: $666,131

Comment: Capital component.

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $257,800 | FY08: $257,800 | FY09: $257,800

Comment: Expense portion of project. See capital budget for capital recommendation.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable

Comment:

This project would benefit from a program level review with a site visit following, perhaps, distribution of a ten-year summary report in 2008 of their biological and physical habitat results. The explanation for priority setting and reference to priorities in the Subbasin Plan is brief but reasonable. The sponsors go beyond just prioritization by opportunity. Their prioritization process works out two ways: they evaluate projects that come forward against their prioritization, and they actively pursue actions in priority areas. Nevertheless, this project was hard to review because many of the proposed actions aren't well described and by the next review cycle, those actions will have been implemented. A more explicit description of the criteria used to prioritize projects would be beneficial and should be documented by the next review cycle. A flow chart describing proposed activities from prioritization to monitoring to adaptive management would be helpful. The sponsors provided sound bites of results but didn't provide the data or graphs supporting the results. Although this is a good first step, the ISRP is in the position to have to take these statements at face value. Some context should be added to the data. The sponsors can make more of the data that they do have. They should incorporate better reporting in their next annual report. Much of the proposal’s focus is for benefits to the range system, with some benefits to fish; however, this is a balanced approach for activities ongoing in the John Day Basin. Objectives as taken from the Subbasin Plan are reasonable, but in future the sponsors should make more effort to include these and priority areas in their proposal in measurable form. The response to why detailed information is not available on all work elements (projects in development) was somewhat reasonable, provided that there is some mechanism for review of work plans as they are developed. However, even in the development stage, projects should have relevant design detail to report. Research design can't be only opportunistic. Narrative summaries of biological outcomes of ongoing work were presented. These would have enhanced the proposal and should have been included with supporting data and interpretive evaluation. The project should routinely monitor and report these types of response measures. Much more emphasis should be given to the analysis and interpretation of these indicators in future proposals.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable, but at a reduced level

Review group: OSPIT - Plateau

Recommended budgets: FY07: $750,000 | FY08: $750,000 | FY09: $750,000

Comment: OSPIT recommends reducing the implementation rate of the project for budgetary purposes. Again, we do not understand the designation of the project as "expense." The change from capital to expense has caused the subbasin undue hardship in budgeting valuable work.