home about us fish & wildlife energy news reports & papers contact us

Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2003 Proposals for the Upper and Middle Snake, Columbia Cascade, and Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces

April 23, 2002  |  document ISRP 2002-2

read full report > (530k Acrobat PDF file)

responses to ISRP comments (Mar 21)

Summary

This report provides preliminary comments and recommendations of the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Peer Review Groups on projects submitted for Fiscal Year 2003 funding in the Columbia Cascade, Upper and Middle Snake, and Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces. It provides project sponsors and the public an opportunity to respond to ISRP concerns before the ISRP makes its final recommendation to the Council on June 7, 2002. The report also provides information to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority for its use in project prioritization.

Preliminary recommendations and comments are provided for each of the 168 proposals submitted. These recommendations are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable, further ISRP response review is not needed (11 proposals); 2) a response review is needed (134 proposals); and 3) do not fund, a response is not warranted (19 proposals). Four proposals were considered not amenable to scientific review, withdrawn, or combined with other proposals. Proposals receiving “a response review is needed” will be recommended as “fundable” by the ISRP only if a response is provided that adequately addresses reviewer comments. Although the ISRP will not review responses to those proposals that received a “do not fund, a response is not warranted,” project sponsors are welcome to provide comments to the Council.

Response instructions

This preliminary report marks the completion of the first step in the project selection process. As stated above, project proponents and the public have the opportunity to respond to this report. Responses should focus on the technical comments, answer all review questions, and clarify uncertain information. Responses should be formatted to address ISRP comments point by point, clearly identifying or repeating each concern/question and providing a response. The title and project number of the proposal should be displayed prominently on the front page of the response. Electronic documents should be named using the project ID number; e.g. “22022response.doc” and email messages should contain the project ID number in the subject line.

Important: If the response includes any change in the budget, the project sponsors must resubmit Part I of the proposal form with a revised budget section.

Responses and comments must be received at the Northwest Power Planning Council no later than 5 p.m, March 15, 2002. Please email responses and comments to kphillips@nwcouncil.org. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word or Excel (for tables).

If email is not available, please mail the response and diskette/CD to:

Northwest Power Planning Council
Attention: Kendra Phillips - Response to ISRP
851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97204

The Council staff will verify that responses were received and successfully downloaded via email. If you need assistance incorporating graphs or maps in your response, please contact Eric Schrepel.

Concurrently, CBFWA, with the ISRP’s technical review in hand, will generate a list of projects recommended for funding and finalize the subbasin summaries as part of its draft annual implementation work plan. The work plan is scheduled for release May 17, 2002. For more details on the CBFWA process and province reviews in general see www.cbfwa.org.

The ISRP will then review the responses and CBFWA's recommended list of projects and provide a second and final report to the Northwest Power Planning Council by June 7, 2002. Thereafter, the Council will make its funding recommendations to Bonneville. It is anticipated that the Council’s funding recommendations will be made in August of 2002.