The ISRP recommends funding for progressing through the Three-Step Review process and revision of the project's Master Plan. Subsequent funding for the construction and implementation phase of the project should be contingent on adequate Master Plan revision and favorable scientific review (for programmatic rigor and consistency with the Fish and Wildlife Program principles). The total cost for the CJDHP master plan and design work was $430,449 and includes master plan completion and submittal, conceptual engineering designs and costs, and staffing necessary to complete work for the submission of the master plan. (NPCC FY 2006 $1,825,000 Capital)

The first step of the ISRP's review identified a number of uncertainties, unanswered questions, and suggested improvements that have not yet been received. The next round of review in the process is anticipated in Fall 2006.

Ultimately, the response provides little direct or additional scientific content to satisfy concerns with issues of science. The sponsors indicate that M&E is intended to be developed and presented in Step Three. M&E and early inclusion of these concerns need to be accommodated early in design. Moreover, confidence that such a plan will be rigorous and robust would be greatly elevated if a basic framework with specific kinds of informational gathering (with some justification) were specifically provided in a response.

Another important consideration for the sponsors to address remains the proof in concept for supplementation at assisting with recovery of naturally reproducing salmon. For example, returns of Chinook to the Similkameen Pond is given as a sufficient pilot project and proof of concept. It is not a sufficiently complete or robust test of the broader hypothesis. No evidence is provided from an M&E basis that the population is self-sustaining and that recruits per spawner are >1. Moreover, there were questions regarding whether the proposed integrated recovery program can/will co-exist in harmony with the integrated harvest (mitigation) program. ISRP recommended some presentation of evidence or a model (e.g., AHA modeling results) of how this coexistence might work relative to other alternatives.