Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

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

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable

Comment:

While the concept of developing better tools to evaluate project compliance is a good one, this proposal did not provide enough information to warrant funding. The material provided did not engender confidence that the deliverables would be useful. The technical and scientific background section did not adequately explain the issue of compliance monitoring as related to the Columbia River Basin. No references were cited. Technical difficulties were not discussed. The proposal needed a more detailed discussion of compliance monitoring in relation to regional plans. The challenges of compliance monitoring for each of the four Hs -- hatcheries, harvest, habitat, and hydro -- in the context of regional programs should have been presented. The methods were inadequately described, and in general were not given at all. For example, the meaning of the term "population" in the context of stratified sampling referred to the population of restoration projects, not to fish and wildlife populations. Without clarification, it was impossible to know what was meant. Also, it was not clear what "fieldwork and site visits" would accomplish. Finally, the ISRP questions whether a fish and wildlife program project should review the compliance of other projects; this should be a job for Bonneville’s contracting officers.

State/province recommendation: MS: Do Not Fund

Review group: MSRT

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

Comment: PISCES should be able to provide project compliance monitoring for the Program as it matures.