Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

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

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable

Comment:

The response included little revision from the original. The proposal remains confusing and inadequate. ISRP comments (June 2006): Superficially, the components of the project purport to benefit fish resources, but in reality this appears to be data gathering only justified by a desire to accumulate data, and there is little compelling evidence that fish would benefit. Most of the proposal is an extraction from the Subbasin Plan without developing it further. There are no objectives discussed, no critical needs or biological bottlenecks described, and little logic presented. The proposal gives inadequate justification that this data gathering activity would benefit fish resources. With regard to lacustrine habitat, there are many reasons to believe that Lake Rufus Woods is similar to Lake Roosevelt, in that both represent habitat altered in such ways to make them just about the most difficult to manage of any freshwater ecosystem. There is a long history of work on Lake Roosevelt that is very germane to the proposed stock assessment and limnological monitoring proposed here for Lake Rufus Woods; however, it is not discussed. To have any chance of success a Rufus Woods program will have to be carefully conceived and based on a clear understanding of the risks involved. In its current form this proposal falls far short. For streams, the proposal copies the worst of what is being done by others in the name of stream salmonid enhancement throughout much of the Intermountain Province. The narrative is not properly organized. It is confusingly written in other respects, as well. Various required topics are not covered. This seems to be a project designed to carry out various procedures of fish population and habitat survey, but the underlying purposes (objectives) are not explained. Methods should follow from objectives. Design of sampling and statistical analysis procedure is largely missing.

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: Intermountain

Recommended budgets: FY07: $644,932 | FY08: $644,932 | FY09: $944,932

Comment: Withdrew improvements. Reduced budget by total $95,609. Average $644,932/year

State/province recommendation: Washington

Review group: Washington list

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: See Washington guidance