Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $729,635 | FY08: $729,635 | FY09: $729,635

Comment:

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

Comment:

The original June 2006 assessment of the proposal was fairly succinct, “Funding for continuation of this project is contingent on submittal of an adequate response coordinated with the monitoring and evaluation proposal 199801004. As an O & M proposal for fish rearing, this proposal has enough information for review, but its technical merit is tied to the M & E proposal. Therefore, evaluation and adaptive management of this project is contingent on successful execution of project 199801004. This is a major activity. There should be better structuring of the relationships of exactly how the proposed actions will accomplish objectives.” As a result, this recommendation is qualified in that a reasonable response and alteration of the proposal would bring this proposal into the fundable category The authors basically chose a two-pronged strategy for their response back to he ISRP: 1. First, they directed the ISRP to “Please see the response to the ISRP comments on Project 19981004 – Monitor and Evaluate Performance of Juvenile Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon from Chinook Acclimation Facilities.” This was a bad strategy because the sponsor’s response to 199801004 was so woefully inadequate. 2. Second, they would have the ISRP ignore our earlier concerns via the following statement regarding the importance of their project: “As such, this project was identified by NOAA Fisheries as an important project in the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) BiOp and the 2004 FCRPS BiOp as part of the environmental baseline. Most recently, BPA identified this project as one of its ‘ESA implementation priorities’ as well as one of the projects that “currently implement the Updated Proposed Action (UPA) and 2004 BiOp” (letter from Greg Delwiche to Rhonda Whiting, June 1, 2006).” That is not a reason for the ISRP to dismiss its concerns, but it is a reason for the authors to work hard to address the ISRP concerns and improve the proposal.

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 - Blue Mountain

Recommended budgets: FY07: $729,635 | FY08: $729,635 | FY09: $729,635

Comment: OSPIT recommends holding the budget to the FY06 level and flatlining for FY08 and 09.