The major comment by the ISRP in their preliminary review bears repeating:

"This project is very similar in organization, language, objectives, and methodology to Project Proposals # 200730000 and # 200732600. In general, these three proposals recommend a return to the same organization and staff of the present FPC that may be dissolved in November 2006. The ISRP recommends close coordination among these [three] proposals' proponents (CRITFC, ODFW, CBFWA, and WDFW) to develop one well-organized proposal with sufficient technical detail to address ISRP comments/recommendations."

The sponsors of this proposal (200732100) and proposals 200730000 and 200732600 have now consolidated their proposals into this one, sponsored by CBFWA. The ISRP appreciates the efforts by all sponsors to produce a much improved, more comprehensive proposal narrative with technical detail added addressing ISRP comments and concerns. The response document was also very well done and provided point-by-point detailed responses to each of the ISRP's comments and recommendations.

The proposal sponsors have dropped Objective 4 from the revised narrative. This objective, in the original proposal is stated as follows: "Objective 4: Maintain Regionally Accepted Oversight Group - The FY06 RFP required a well-defined process for objective oversight and direction of the analysis and reporting to provide transparency, objectivity, and accountability. The development of an oversight group will occur during the implementation of the 2006 field season. With CBFWA Members approval, the CBFWA will implement the plans and decision framework that is established during that timeframe. If an oversight group has not been formed, the CBFWA will develop a regionally accepted oversight and governance structure under this proposal using an independent contractor." In their review, the ISRP found this objective to have merit in concept, but it lacked enough detailed description to understand what the function of this group would be. Did project sponsors agree that this function was no longer needed or that this function would be performed by project # 200728700 (PNNL)? If the later, this project would need to be closely coordinated with the PNNL project, to avoid overlap and duplication of effort.