Fish and Wildlife Program

Implementation Provisions

This section contains the administrative provisions for the program.

A. Project Implementation, Project Selection and Management

Because this program involves hundreds of projects and many millions of dollars per year in funding, an orderly process is needed to decide which projects should be funded and to administer these decisions once they are made. This section describes that process.

The procedures for implementing this program should ensure that planning results in on-the-ground actions, and that those actions feed information about their results back to the region to guide future decisions. The Council will use the procedures in this section to integrate Bonneville funding for this program with Endangered Species Act requirements and the collaborating programs of the states, tribes and federal and local governments. This section also incorporates the strides made in recent years to define improved selection and management practices for fiscal accountability and improved information about regional fish and wildlife efforts.

This section is intended to outline the essentials of the project selection process. A more detailed description is included in the Technical Appendix.

1. Deadlines for Reports

A number of the strategies in this program call for certain reports to be prepared on an annual or biennial basis. The Council will consult with the parties involved in preparation of these reports to establish the most appropriate time of the year for completion of each report. Following approval by the Council, these deadlines will be recorded in the Technical Appendix. Deadlines established for these reports are subject to change by mutual agreement between the Council and the reporting parties. Unless otherwise indicated, all reports are due beginning in calendar year 2002.

"The procedures for implementing this program should ensure that planning results in on-the-ground actions and that those actions feed information about their results back to the region to guide future decisions."

2. Project Selection - Basic Requirements and Roles

While the Council has always been involved in efforts to ensure that the program it adopts is being implemented effectively, Congress gave the Council an increased and explicit role in program implementation in a 1996 amendment to the Power Act. The Act now charges the Council, with the assistance of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, to make annual recommendations to Bonneville on projects to be funded through the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget to implement the program.

The Power Act specifies certain standards and minimum procedures for the project review process, but otherwise affords the Council broad discretion to define the procedures for conducting project review and selection. The processes outlined below describe the statutory requirements and the particular approach that the Council intends to use for the foreseeable future to address these requirements and implement the program. The Council will continue to refine and modify program implementation measures it finds necessary to best accomplish the fish and wildlife purposes of the Act.

In 1998, the U.S. Congress’ Senate-House conference report on the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill directed the Council, again with the assistance of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, to also review on an annual basis the fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by Bonneville (the "reimbursable programs"). The four major components of the reimbursable program include the 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); and the Leavenworth Hatchery (Bureau of Reclamation). It is the Council’s intent to integrate to the maximum extent possible the review of these reimbursable programs with the review of the projects funded by Bonneville to implement the Council’s program.

Role of the Independent Scientific Review Panel

The 1996 amendment to the Power Act directed the Council to form the Independent Scientific Review Panel and Scientific Peer Review Groups to review projects proposed for funding to implement the Council’s program through the Bonneville Power Administration’s annual fish and wildlife budget. The Act requires the Independent Scientific Review Panel to determine whether projects proposed for funding:

• Are based on sound science principles
• Benefit fish and wildlife
• Have clearly defined objectives and outcomes
• Have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results
• Are consistent with the program

The Independent Scientific Review Panel then provides the Council its recommendations regarding project quality and priorities. The 1998 conference report directed the Independent Scientific Review Panel to also review the reimbursable projects using the same standards and provide recommendations to the Council.

Role of the Council

The Council’s primary role in the project review process is to decide which projects to recommend to Bonneville for funding to implement the program. The Council is also to provide recommendations to Congress and to the federal agencies on funding for the reimbursable programs.

Several considerations must go into those recommendations. The Council must allow for public review and comment on the projects proposed for funding and the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s recommendations. The Council must fully consider and respond to the recommendations of the Independent Scientific Review Panel; the Council must review and determine for itself whether proposed projects are consistent with the Act and the program, including adopted subbasin plans. The Council must determine if proposed projects have met programmatic or project-specific conditions. By statute, the Council must take into consideration the effects of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations and must determine that projects employ cost effective means to meet program objectives.

Role of the Fish and Wildlife Managers

Currently, the fish and wildlife managers, through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, develop a draft annual program implementation work plan from the projects proposed for funding. This draft annual work plan is the culmination of a technical and management review of all proposed projects, and it establishes a proposed annual budget and project priorities. The Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Council review the projects proposed for funding in the context of the managers’ draft work plan. The Council anticipates that the fish and wildlife managers will continue to organize themselves and jointly provide these recommendations in the work plan to the Council.

The project reviews and advice of the fish and wildlife managers are valuable to the Council as it deliberates on its funding recommendations. With the program’s focus on subbasin level plans as the guiding documents for program implementation, it will be critical that the fish and wildlife managers involve others in the subbasins — stakeholders, land owners and managers, other state and federal agencies, and other interested parties — in a meaningful manner in the development of draft work plans to be able to continue using these work plan recommendations as the foundation for the Council’s project recommendations.

3. Project Selection - Province-based Project Review Process

The Council is shifting the annual project solicitation, review and selection of projects from a basin-wide exercise to one that focuses on needs identified at a province and subbasin scale. This shift was made to better align the project selection process with this program’s structure that focuses planning and implementation most directly at those levels. Further, in focusing the review on a limited number of provinces and subbasins each year, a more in-depth review of proposed projects can be accomplished. This in-depth review, conducted within a more structured subbasin and province context, will enable the Council to recommend multi-year funding for projects.

Elements of province reviews include:

• The Council provides for a province meeting to explain the review process to those interested in how Bonneville funding may be used within that province. Lead groups are selected for each subbasin to develop subbasin summaries or, where completed and adopted by the Council, review subbasin plans to identify fish and wildlife project needs that may be proposed for Bonneville funding for the next three years
• Fish and wildlife needs (from a summary or plan) are made widely available, and Bonneville solicits for project proposals to meet the identified needs
• Sponsors of ongoing projects submit project renewal proposals that include plans for the next three years, descriptions of results to date, and briefings on background documents. Ongoing projects will also submit all relevant planning, research, and background documents. Sponsors of new projects submit proposals. All projects must be tied to the approved subbasin plan. Reimbursable programs that are within that province provide similar information
• Bonneville should review proposed projects and budgets to ensure that regulatory needs, including compliance with applicable federal laws, are considered, that questions about the adequacy or appropriateness of proposed budgets are resolved in the Council’s recommendation process, and that any concerns Bonneville has about the performance of ongoing projects are identified
• The Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews proposals and supporting documents in the context of subbasin plans and the fish and wildlife program
• The Independent Scientific Review Panel conducts subbasin/province visits with project sponsors, managers and others. The visit includes an opportunity for project sponsors to present their proposals and for a subsequent question and answer session with the Independent Scientific Review Panel. In addition, the Independent Scientific Review Panel may conduct project-specific visits
• After the visit, the Independent Scientific Review Panel produces a draft report on proposals recommended for funding, including specific questions, and provides it to project sponsors for comments and revisions
• The project sponsors respond to the draft report
• The Independent Scientific Review Panel addresses the responses and issues a final report and recommendations to the Council. The Council considers the Independent Scientific Review Panel report, other statutory and programmatic considerations, and makes final funding recommendations on program implementation to Bonneville. The Council also makes recommendations on the funding of projects within the reimbursable programs to Congress and the relevant federal agencies
• Systemwide projects will be reviewed as a separate unit within the review schedule. Wherever possible, projects within the mainstem will be reviewed as part of the review of the province in which they are located, although certain projects that concern systemwide passage, water management and dissolved gas issues may be reviewed as part of a separate category of integrated mainstem passage activities

4. Project Funding Priorities

The Northwest Power Act establishes Bonneville’s obligation to fully mitigate for fish and wildlife impacts from the development and operation of the hydropower system. The Council recognizes its obligation, in turn, to construct a program that guides Bonneville’s mitigation efforts. The Council recognizes that the work necessary to satisfy Bonneville’s mitigation obligation must be staged to accommodate yearly budget limitations. The Council also believes that final determination of the yearly direct program budget may properly be reserved for a later phase of the program amendment process where the project funding needs will be more greatly informed by subbasin planning. Funding for provincial budgets to implement subbasin plans will be part of the direct program budget along with any subsequent increases.

The Council adopts the following funding principles to prioritize among the many needs to address fish and wildlife impacts throughout the basin:

• The Bonneville Power Administration will fulfill its Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles (September 16, 1998) including the commitment to "meet all of its fish and wildlife obligations"
• The determination of provincial budget levels should take into account the level of impact caused by the federally operated hydropower system. Other factors will also influence this determination including opportunities for off-site mitigation
• Wildlife mitigation should emphasize addressing areas of the basin with the highest proportion of unmitigated losses

To prioritize among the many needs to address fish and wildlife impacts throughout the basin, the Council will maintain the current funding allocation for anadromous fish (70 percent), resident fish (15 percent), and wildlife (15 percent), until a new budget allocation is adopted.

5. Coordination with Other Regional Programs

The Council will pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other federal, state, tribal, Canadian, and volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs. The Council will use the subbasin planning process to identify coordination needs and opportunities. The subbasin planning process should inventory regulatory requirements, including Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act measures, clarify water and land management objectives affecting fish and wildlife, and fit program funding to other programs for the maximum benefit.

As the Council refines the province-based project review and funding process, it will focus the information requirements of the process to identify how project sponsors may link their efforts to address program objectives with the objectives or requirements of other programs.

The Council will use the subbasin planning process to review Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements in more detail and obtain independent scientific review of both the program measures and the requirements of applicable biological opinions. The Council will present the results of these reviews and any revised recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider further revision or reconciliation of biological opinion requirements. Pursuant to the requirements of the 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, the Council will also report the results of these reviews to Congress as part of the annual review of reimbursable projects.

The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to call on the federal action agencies to annually develop one- and five-year implementation plans and associated budgets for activities they intend to undertake to meet the performance standards and objectives for listed species. The Council endorses this approach, and once the requirement is further defined, will seek to incorporate these plans into the subbasin review process.

"The Council will pursue opportunities to integrate program strategies with other federal, state, tribal, Canadian, and volunteer fish and wildlife restoration programs."

For non-operational measures proposed by biological opinions for Bonneville funding (such as research or off-site habitat measures), the Council will call on Bonneville, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to first define proposed projects consistently with the project proposal form and process for Bonneville’s direct-funded program. The Council will seek review of these proposals with the other projects proposed in the project review process.

6. Project Management

To facilitate multi-year funding and contracting, the Council will require projects to identify specific tasks, objectives, deliverables, and their associated costs. Bonneville and the Council will establish protocols to ensure that projects stay within their approved scope and funding authorizations.

Bonneville shall define terms and conditions for project contracts that support timely and complete reporting by contractors of expenditures and progress toward defined project objectives. These requirements should ensure that project sponsors report expenditures and progress in enough detail to monitor performance of the specific tasks and objectives identified in the original project proposal from the Council.

7. Annual Report to Governors and the Region

Bonneville and the federal operating agencies will work cooperatively with the Council to produce an annual report which will provide an accounting of its fish and wildlife expenditures and hydropower operation costs.

8. Funding Agreement for Land and Water Acquisitions

Experience implementing this program has shown great advantages in being able to move quickly and flexibly to acquire interests in land and water rights for the purpose of protecting or enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. Often the opportunity for an important acquisition exists only for a short period of time, and often there is a substantial price advantage in being able to quickly close the transaction. The time and uncertainty of the current project selection process, and the procedural constraints on real estate acquisition by the federal agencies have made these transactions relatively difficult and more costly than necessary.

The Council recommends that Bonneville establish a funding agreement for land and water acquisitions. The Council will establish a mechanism, including an advisory entity, that can act flexibly, quickly, and responsibly in approving funding for land and water acquisition proposals. The primary elements are:

• A dedicated budget within Bonneville’s fish and wildlife funding establishing the amount of funding for land and water acquisitions available per year, for a multi-year period. The budget would be known as the "Land and Water Acquisition Fund"
• An advisory board appointed by the Council after consultations with representatives from Bonneville, federal and state fish and wildlife and land management agencies, Columbia Basin Indian tribes, non-profit organizations specializing in habitat and water acquisitions, and the Council. The board would recommend for Council approval all land and water acquisitions from the dedicated budget. The Council will make all final recommendations and decisions regarding land and water acquisitions from the fund
• Specific procedures and criteria for the board to use in identifying, reviewing, and deciding whether to recommend proposals for land and water acquisitions. These criteria will be reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, but specific land and water acquisitions would not require Independent Scientific Review Panel review. An element of these criteria will be a preference for proposed actions that 1) address imminent risks to the survival of one or more species listed under the Endangered Species Act and 2) are broadly recognized as achieving direct fish and wildlife benefits. The criteria should emphasize consistency with the program’s biological objectives and subbasin plans
• Standardized terms for implementing acquisitions, including matters of contracting, management, crediting, operation and maintenance costs, and monitoring and evaluation requirements
• Accountability provisions for reporting on monies spent, properties acquired, biological gain, and consistency with program and subbasin objectives. The program as a whole will receive periodic Independent Scientific Review Panel review

"The Council recommends that Bonneville establish a funding agreement for land and water acquisitions."

The Council will work with Bonneville and other interested parties to establish the details of the acquisition fund and have it ready for acquisitions by January 1, 2001. All acquisitions must be on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, consistent with state water law, and consistent with the other provisions of this program. Council members will be notified of all acquisition proposals under consideration by the advisory board. The fund will not be used for a proposed acquisition if both Council members from that state object to the acquisition.

The fund will not take title to acquisitions except on an interim basis, but will, for each transaction, identify an appropriate entity to hold the interest acquired. The fund will work in cooperation with other efforts that are already underway to benefit fish and wildlife through acquisitions of land and may provide cost sharing or full funding for transactions that have been arranged by others. In appropriate circumstances, the fund may provide for the continuing payment of local taxes and fees on an acquisition.

B. Independent Scientific Review

All projects funded under this program are required by law to undergo review by an independent science panel. In addition, the program uses a second, related panel of scientists to provide advice to the region on key scientific issues.

Independent scientific review is an established tradition in research and development programs in the United States and much of the world. Independent scientific review can help decision-makers separate scientific variables from other considerations (political, economic, cultural, etc.) and help ensure that environmental decision-making reflects the best scientific knowledge of the day. In the Columbia River Basin, the magnitude of scientific research undertaken and uncertainties that remain are staggering. Independent scientific review can identify strengths and weaknesses of scientific programs and critical information gaps that are 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 and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. Each group provides unique services to the program. The Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews individual projects in the context of the program and makes recommendations on matters related to those projects. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board provides an on-call scientific body for peer review of various reports, projects, and issues affecting Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel was created after the last Council program amendment, and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s role was expanded from the 1994-1995 Program to meet the National Marine Fisheries Service’s needs. This program amendment formalizes, distinguishes, and specifies the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the two groups while maintaining a strong link between the groups. The background and responsibilities for each group, and a description of the shared administrative procedures for both groups follows.

1. The Independent Scientific Review Panel

Review Responsibilities

The 1996 amendment to the Power Act directed the Council to appoint an 11-member panel of independent scientists and additional peer review groups. These scientists provide advice and information regarding scientific aspects of projects that the Council may recommend for funding by Bonneville. The Independent Scientific Review Panel and peer review groups have responsibilities in three areas:

• Review projects proposed for Bonneville funding to implement the Council’s program

The Power Act directs the Independent Scientific Review Panel to review annually projects that are proposed for Bonneville funding to implement the Council’s program. The Act specifies the review standards that the Independent Scientific Review Panel is to use and the kinds of recommendations to make to the Council. The Council must fully consider the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s report prior to making its funding recommendations to Bonneville, and must explain in writing wherever the Council’s recommendations differ from the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s.

• Retrospective review of program accomplishments

The 1996 amendment also directs the Independent Scientific Review Panel, with assistance from the Scientific Peer Review Groups, to annually review the results of prior-year expenditures based upon the project review criteria and submit its findings to the Council.

The retrospective review should focus on the measurable benefits to fish and wildlife made through projects funded by Bonneville and previously reviewed. The Independent Scientific Review Panel’s findings should provide biological information for the Council’s ongoing accounting and evaluation of Bonneville’s expenditures and the level of success in meeting the objectives of the program, as described in the monitoring and evaluation section. Also as part of the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s annual retrospective report, the Independent Scientific Review Panel should summarize its province review efforts and identify the major basinwide programmatic issues gleaned from the province reviews.

• Review projects funded through Bonneville’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 Independent Scientific Review Panel to review the fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by Bonneville, using the same standards and making recommendations as in its review of the projects proposed to implement the Council’s program. Further details of the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s project review responsibilities are described earlier, in the section on project selection.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel is a standing group that meets throughout the year. Recommendations from the Independent Scientific Review Panel are reached by consensus. The Independent Scientific Review Panel may enlist Peer Review Group members to assist in reviews. From the pool of Peer Review Group members, the Independent Scientific Review Panel selects reviewers who have the appropriate expertise for the review at issue. The Independent Scientific Review Panel develops guidelines and criteria for reviews that include lists of materials reviewed, site-visit protocols, and limits to reviewer and project sponsor communication.

2. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board

The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service established the Independent Scientific Advisory Board to provide independent scientific advice to the region through measures described in the Council’s 1994-1995 Fish and Wildlife Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 1995 Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. Rather than establish two groups, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council created the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. In creating the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Council hoped to avoid gridlock over scientific uncertainty, circumvent unnecessary additional research, and resolve conflicting advice and opinions on recovery issues and measures.

Review Procedures

The Independent Scientific Advisory Board is a standing group that meets regularly throughout the year. Recommendations from the Independent Scientific Advisory Board are reached by consensus. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board may enlist ad hoc members to assist in reviews. Ad hoc members may include Independent Scientific Review Panel and Peer Review Group members. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board conducts reviews in a manner consistent with its terms of reference and procedures policy.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board Administrative Oversight Panel

A panel consisting of the chair of the Northwest Power Planning Council, the regional administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and a representative from the Columbia Basin Indian tribes provides administrative oversight for the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and approves the Independent Scientific Advisory Board work plan. The panel makes appointments to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board from a list developed by a Scientific Screening Committee. Decisions of the panel shall be by majority vote. The Council shall work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the regional Indian tribes to amend the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s terms of reference to provide this role for the regional Indian tribes, and to define protocols for the Administrative Oversight Panel that ensure the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s continued independence.

Specific Tasks of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board

• Evaluate the program’s scientific principles to ensure they are consistent with the best available science
• Evaluate the fish and wildlife program on its scientific merits in time to inform amendments to the fish and wildlife program and before the Council requests recommendations from the region
• Evaluate National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plans for Columbia River Basin stocks and aspects of the recovery process when requested
  • Review the scientific and technical issues associated with efforts to improve anadromous fish survival through all life stages, based on adaptive management approaches
  • Review and provide advice on priorities for conservation and recovery efforts, including research, monitoring and evaluation
• Provide specific scientific advice on topics and questions requested from the region and approved by the oversight panel. Tribes, fish and wildlife agencies and others may submit questions to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board through the oversight panel. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board may also identify questions and propose reviews. The oversight panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board reviews these questions in a timely manner and decides which are amenable to scientific analysis, are relevant to the Council’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s programs, and fit within the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s work plan

In 2000, The National Marine Fisheries Service established a Recovery Science Review Panel and Technical Review Teams that will provide scientific advice on West Coast salmon recovery efforts. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board effort will be coordinated with The National Marine Fisheries Service’s panel and teams to avoid redundancy.

3. Administration of the Independent Scientific Review Panel, the Scientific Peer Review Groups, and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board Membership

The Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board shall each be composed of eleven members. Peer Review Groups shall be composed of a pool of scientists sufficient in size and expertise to assist the Independent Scientific Review Panel in its review responsibilities. To ensure coordination and avoid redundancy of efforts between the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, at least two members of the Independent Scientific Review Panel shall be on the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. Other Independent Scientific Advisory Board members should be considered for appointment to the Peer Review Group.

Membership for each group shall include, to the extent feasible, scientists with expertise in Columbia River anadromous and resident fish ecology, statistics, wildlife ecology, and ocean and estuary ecology, fish husbandry, genetics, geomorphology, social and economic sciences, and other relevant disciplines. There should be a balance between scientists with specific knowledge of the Columbia River Basin and those with more broad and diverse experience. Members should have a strong record of scientific accomplishment, high standards of scientific integrity, the ability to forge creative solutions to complex problems, and a demonstrated ability to work effectively in an interdisciplinary setting.

Independent Scientific Review Panel and Independent Scientific Advisory Board membership terms are for three years, not to exceed two terms. Term limits of the members are staggered to ensure continuity of effort. Peer Review Group members do not have specific terms, but the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Council will review the pool of Peer Review Group members on an annual basis and update it when appropriate.

Appointment Procedures

The appointment procedures to fill vacancies on the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and the Independent Scientific Review Panel, and to augment the pool of Peer Review Group members, follows three steps. The first two steps are the same for each group. First, the Council, in cooperation with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board Oversight Panel, invites the region to submit nominations. Second, a three-member committee of the National Academy of Sciences, assisted by the National Research Council, evaluates the credentials of the nominees, submits additional nominees if necessary, and recommends a pool of qualified candidates for potential appointment. This pool of candidates should span the areas of needed expertise and meet the membership criteria for the Independent Scientific Review Panel and Independent Scientific Advisory Board. The pool should be robust enough to last through several rounds of appointments. The third step, the appointment procedure, varies for the Independent Scientific Advisory Board and Independent Scientific Review Panel. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board Oversight Panel appoints Independent Scientific Advisory Board members. The Council alone appoints Independent Scientific Review Panel and Peer Review Group members.

Conflict of Interest

Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Independent Scientific Review Panel and Scientific Peer Review Group members are subject to the conflict of interest standards that apply to scientists performing comparable work for the National Academy of Sciences. At a minimum, members with direct or indirect financial interest in a project shall be recused from review of, or recommendations associated with, such a project. The Council may create a Conflict of Interest Policy that satisfies the needs of the program, applies to the Independent Scientific Review Panel and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, and is at least as rigorous as the National Academy of Sciences standards.

^ top