also see ISRP 98-1 report
This appendix includes the consensus comments on each proposal recorded during the ISRP’s discussions of the proposals. These comments constitute a brief summary of the discussions of the individual proposals and do not capture the entirety of the discussions. During these discussions, the ISRP assigned each proposal to one of three categories: 1) adequate, 2) inadequate proposal or 3) inadequate proposal but a good idea (adequate purpose). The first two categories were a judgment on the technical quality of the proposal and did not necessarily reflect the need for or the priority of the work proposed. In many cases, an "inadequate" proposal did not provide enough information to allow the ISRP to determine if the project was meeting a legitimate need or if the methods to be used were sound and appropriate. By placing a proposal in the inadequate category, the ISRP is not making a recommendation to withhold funding, at least not this year. The third category included proposals that were technically inadequate, but it was clear to the ISRP that the project addressed important needs in the basin. The ISRP’s review process is described in detail in the text of the report on pages 18 to 28.
The ISRP provides these comments for several purposes: to provide a portion of the basis for the ISRP’s findings; to provide proposal writers with constructive feedback on how they might improve subsequent proposals and aspects of their projects; and to highlight areas of concern that need further analysis by fish and wildlife managers, the Council and BPA.