The new draft of the proposal has almost no changes to it, and the response, which was supposed to explain all of the shortfalls of why the original was not justified continues to fall short. Why funding for this activity should commence is still not justified.

The ISRP's preliminary comments (June 1, 2006): The technical and scientific background establishes that a problem exists - a decrease in chum salmon abundance during the past century. But the technical and scientific background does not establish that this project is needed to guide management in solving the problem. There is no indication that this work is identified in a Fish and Wildlife Program subbasin plan or a federal recovery plan. Therefore, the ISRP cannot recommend the project for funding at this time.

Any future proposal should develop the topic with much more detailed justification and evidence that much of the work has not been completed by prior projects. For example, habitat evaluation is going to be completed to identify sites for Duncan Creek like supplementation. Wouldn't information already exist in databases or the EDT analysis that was part of the subbasin planning process?

The proposal could have been made more complete by describing the methodology and proposed outcomes of this study.