home
ISRP funding recommendation categories
Funding recommendations are split into three basic categories:
- Fundable, including fundable (qualified) and fundable in part. Further ISRP response review is not needed (218 proposals);
- A response is requested before the ISRP can make its final recommendation (210 proposals);
- Not fundable, a response is not needed to make a final recommendation (104 proposals).
These categories are described in detail below.
1. Fundable is assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat restoration project may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation project to measure results as long as such proposals clearly demonstrate this integration. Unless otherwise indicated, a “fundable” recommendation is not an indication of the ISRP’s view on the priority of the proposal, nor an endorsement to fund the proposal, but rather reflects its scientific merit and compatibility with Program goals. Although the ISRP’s comments may include suggestions to improve the proposal, a response to the ISRP is not needed.
Fundable (Qualified) is assigned to “fundable” proposals that require clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor. Although some of the ISRP’s comments may be similar to those found in proposals for which the ISRP requests a response, the ISRP finds that overall the proposal is sufficiently justified to not require a response review. The ISRP expects that required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and BPA in consultation with the project sponsor in the final project selection process. The ISRP also uses “fundable qualified” for proposals that are technically sound but appear to offer marginal or very uncertain benefits to fish and wildlife. The ISRP expects that, if a proposal is funded, in subsequent proposals the project sponsors will address the ISRP’s comments. A response to the ISRP is not needed.
Fundable in Part is assigned to a proposal that includes both work that is scientifically supported and work that is not. The ISRP specifies which elements are not scientifically sound and recommends that these not be funded. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent major on-the-ground implementation that could not be supported before results of the assessment were known, or proposals that included use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. “Fundable in part” is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the three years (FY07-09) but would benefit from an interim review within those years, for example, a proof of principle research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot level before full implementation. A response to the ISRP is not needed. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and BPA in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
2. Response Requested is used when a proposal requires a response on specific issues before the ISRP can make its final recommendation. Responses should focus on the technical comments, answer all review questions, and clarify requested information. Responses should be formatted to address ISRP comments point by point, clearly identifying or repeating each concern/question and providing a response. In some cases, project sponsors should revise their proposals. In this category, the ISRP assumes that if a local group does not prioritize the proposal, it will not be eligible for an ISRP response review unless specifically recommended by the Council. Only proposals that are 1) labeled response requested and 2) are prioritized by a local/provincial group and/or are identified by the Council as eligible for a response need to respond to the ISRP. During the week of June 19th, 2006, the Council will post a notice identifying which projects may respond to the ISRP review as part of the project response phase.
3. Not Fundable is assigned to proposals that are significantly deficient in one or more of the ISRP review criteria. One example is a proposal for an ongoing project that may offer benefits to fish but does not include provisions for monitoring and evaluation or report past results. Another example is a research proposal that is technically sound but does not offer benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts or is not sufficiently linked to management actions. In most cases, proposals that receive “Not Fundable” recommendations lack detailed methods or provision for monitoring and evaluation, and some propose actions that have the potential for significant deleterious effects on fish or wildlife. In some cases, a proposal provides so little information that the ISRP cannot conduct a scientific review. To allow a response would be unfair to other proposals and would undermine the project selection process. The ISRP notes that numerous “not fundable” projects propose needed actions or are an integral part of a watershed effort, but the proposed means or approaches are not scientifically sound. In some cases, an RFP is warranted to address the needed action. A response to the ISRP is not needed.
4. Administrative is assigned to coordination proposals that are not amenable to scientific review but need to be grouped with other projects that require scientific review. The proposals should make clear how they relate to the on-the-ground projects. Such proposals are theoretically reviewable, but most do not provide adequate details on coordination methods or results. There is a need to clearly define outcomes for these projects to allow for an evaluation of their efforts. Atypical proposals, such as developing a subbasin plan in a currently unplanned subbasin, may also be categorized as administrative in that they require a policy decision from the Council as to their eligibility for funding. A response to the ISRP is not needed.