Independent Scientific Review Panel background
Independent scientific review is an established tradition in research
and development programs in the United States and much of the world.
Scientific review can help decision-makers separate scientific issues from
other considerations (political, economic, cultural, etc.) and help ensure
that environmental decision making reflects the best available scientific
knowledge. In the Columbia River Basin, the magnitude of scientific
research undertaken and uncertainties that remain are staggering.
Independent scientific review can identify where there is consensus or
disagreement among scientists and help focus implementation and research
on those areas most relevant to management and policy decisions.
Independent scientific review for the fish and wildlife program is
implemented by two groups: the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)
and the Independent Scientific Advisory
Board (ISAB). Each group provides unique services to the program. The
ISRP is formed under the Council's program and reviews individual fish
and wildlife projects funded by Bonneville Power Administration and makes
recommendations on matters related to those projects. The ISAB operates in
conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service and reviews
programmatic and scientific issues in the basin.
Responsibilities
The ISRP was created by the Council in response to section 4(h)(10)(D)
of the Northwest Power Act as amended in 1996. Under the amended Act, the
ISRP provides the Council with independent scientific review of projects
funded by the Bonneville Power Administration. The amended Northwest Power
Act and subsequent Congressional report language defined three major areas
of focus for the ISRP:
1) Review of projects proposed for direct funding by the Bonneville
Power Administration under this program.
The 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act directed the ISRP to
advise the Council regarding projects that are directly funded by
Bonneville Power Administration under this program. This refers to
projects proposed for funding in response to measures contained within the
Council's fish and wildlife program.
The amended Act directs the ISRP to review projects in the context of
the Council's program and in regard to whether they:
- are based on sound science principles;
- benefit fish and wildlife;
- have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and
- have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.
The ISRP reports the results of its review before the Council adopts
funding recommendations. The Council uses the ISRP review as a basis for
making recommendations regarding funding, and will provide an explanation
in writing where its recommendations diverge from those of the ISRP.
2) Retrospective review of project accomplishments
The amended Power Act also directs the ISRP to prepare for the Council
a retrospective report based on a review of results from the projects
funded the previous year.
3) Review projects funded through the Bonneville Power Administration's
"reimbursable" program
In 1998, the U.S. Congress? Senate-House conference report on the
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill directed
the ISRP to annually review all fish and wildlife projects, programs, or
measures included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by
Bonneville. Many of these projects are not directly referenced in the
Council's program. The ISRP is to determine whether the proposals are
consistent with the criteria specified for direct program projects in the
1996 amendment.
The four major components of the reimbursable program include:
- Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program (Corps of Engineers)
- Fish and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Budget (Corps of
Engineers)
- Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
- Leavenworth Hatchery (Bureau of Reclamation).
Implementation of responsibilities
Description
The amended Power Act established the Independent Scientific Review
Panel as an eleven-member group of scientists. The Act also provides for
the creation of Peer Review Groups to assist the ISRP in its review. These
are groups formed to provide the panel with specific expertise and review.
Appointments to the ISRP and Peer Review Groups are made by the Council
based on recommendations from the National Research Council. The Act
specifies that the panel should include expertise in fish and wildlife and
in ocean sciences.
Project review
The ISRP provides the Council with independent scientific review of
fish and wildlife recovery projects within the context of the Council's
program. The Council directs the ISRP to focus its review on those
projects that, in the panel's judgment, would benefit from scientific
review. This includes especially research, evaluation, and management
projects. The Council also may ask the ISRP to review subbasin and other
plans to ensure that strategies are consistent with the Scientific
Principles, guidelines and other established scientific information. Most
projects to support coordination between parties should not require
scientific review. Similarly, projects that are confined to engineering or
construction of a previously reviewed strategy may not require additional
scientific review.
Sequencing and scheduling of project review are based on the annual
project review procedures agreed to among the Council, Bonneville Power
Administration and the region's fishery managers and tribes. The review
of direct and reimbursable projects are scheduled to provide the Council
sufficient time to make recommendations to Bonneville and to mesh with
funding cycles.
ISRP reviews are based on written proposals prepared by project
sponsors and submitted in accord with Bonneville funding procedures. The
Panel may also utilize additional written reports and materials that will
assist them in understanding the scope and context for the proposal. In
some cases, it may be appropriate for the panel to directly communicate
with proposers or to conduct site visits, however, there are procedures to
ensure that all communications are conducted in a fair and open manner
that maintains the independence of the panel.
^ top
|