200714500 - Okanogan Livestock and Water
Sponsor: Okanogan Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Budgets: FY07: $63,820 | FY08: $54,520 | FY09: $34,520
Short description: Provide a cost share program to assist producers in developing offsite water for livestock and provide assistance fencing riparian areas. Allowing producers to respond to and prevent complaints.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
Comment: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments, as funds become available.
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
The ISRP finds this proposal sufficiently justified to not require a response, although clarifications and adjustments might be required in the final selection process. The problem is adequately defined, although the proposal would have been improved by some review of the literature on the results of similar projects. While this is listed as a new proposal, the proponents have had experience with similar projects in the past. There are related projects funded by other agencies. Objectives are rather general, with a process described to select specific objectives after prioritization. Methods are described only briefly, and additional information might need to be provided on how sites will be ranked for selection. Mention of the installation of artificial logjams (narrative, p. 2 and p. 4) raised some concerns in the absence of full description. The proposal would have been improved by inclusion of a plan to monitor and evaluate their results. Section 7 of the Administrative Summary indicates "No Metrics” for several work elements. While this may be accurate in terms of Biological Objectives, setting likely targets in terms of miles of fence or quantities of water in the new sources to be developed should be possible. These will have some indirect biological effects on fish and wildlife. The proposal refers to documents that justify the measures to be undertaken, but the citations make no mention of the expected benefits to fish and wildlife. These benefits are implied if not specified in the documents cited. It would be worthwhile for the proponents to make that connection explicitly. The Administrative Summary lists "river lamprey" as a secondary species likely to be affected. We believe the proponents meant to say Pacific lamprey. Although river lamprey may also be present, the species of most interest to tribal members is probably the Pacific lamprey, since it is (normally) the more abundant of the two. The Administrative Summary mentions that data will be stored electronically. Further explanation in the narrative would have been useful. There should be some regional accounting of miles of fence, cfs of water added, etc. in the Fish and Wildlife Program.
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)