Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

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

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable

Comment:

The original review stated: Sponsors do not prioritize this watershed in terms of biological benefit. It is not tied to critical needs based on EDT or other limiting factor analysis. The proposal should include a description of the basis for, and a projection of the gains in abundance of focal species that are expected from removal of the barrier. The tunnel removal must be feasible, and the proposal should be limited to the tunnel. The response needs to include a convincing argument that access for exotics will not be improved too. It is not clear why new personnel are required; the USFS has the engineering and technology capabilities to complete this project if it is justified. Monitoring and evaluation needs development. There was no response to these requests except a ranking of all the Tribe’s 20+ proposals and a generic memo. Lack of a specific response precludes a “fundable” recommendation. In addition, the Tribe ranked this second tier. For full comments on "restore and protect" type projects, please see heading “General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to protect and restore various watersheds” at the beginning of the ISRP comments on project # 199607702, Protect & Restore Lolo Creek Watershed.

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 when money available

Review group: Snake

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

Comment: NPT Tier 2 - 2