Role of the Independent Seientitic 

 Review Panel 



The 1 996 amendment to the Power 

 Act directed the Council to tbnn the 

 hidependent Scientilic Rc\ie\v Panel 

 and Scientific Peer Review Groups 

 to re\ iew projects proposed tor fund- 

 ing to implement the Council's pro- 

 gram through the Bonneville Power 

 Administration's annual fish and 

 w ildlife budget. The Act requires the 

 Independent Scientific Review Panel 

 to determine whether projects pro- 

 posed for funding: 



• Are based on sound science prin- 

 ciples 



• Benefit fish and wildlife 



• Ha\e 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 prior- 

 ities. The 1998 conference report 

 directed the Independent Scientific 

 Review Panel to also review the 

 reimbursable projects using the same 

 standards and provide recommenda- 

 tions 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 Con- 

 gress and to the federal agencies 

 on funding for the reimbursable pro- 

 grams. 



Several considerations must go 

 into those recommendations. The 

 Council must allow for public 

 review and comment on the projects 

 proposed for funding and the Inde- 

 pendent Scientific Review Panel's 

 recommendations. The Council 

 must fully consider and respond to 



the recommendations of the Inde- 

 pendent Scientific Review Panel: the 

 Council must review and determine 

 for itself whether proposed projects 

 are consistent with the Act and 

 the program, mcluding adopted sub- 

 basin plans. The Council must 

 determine if proposed projects have 

 met programmatic or project-spe- 

 cific 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 ctTective means to meet pro- 

 gram 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 culmi- 

 nation of a technical and manage- 

 ment 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 delib- 

 erates on its funding recommenda- 

 tions. With the program's focus on 

 subbasin level plans as the guiding 

 documents for program implemen- 

 tation, it will be critical that the 

 fish and wildlife managers involve 

 others in the subbasins — ^-stakehold- 

 ers, 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 contuuic 

 using these work plan recommenda- 

 tions as the foundation for the Coun- 

 cil's project recommendations. 



3. Project Selection - Prov- 

 ince-based Project Review 

 Process 



The Council is shifting the annual 

 project solicitation, review and selec- 

 tion 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 accom- 

 plished. This in-depth review, con- 

 ducted within a more structured sub- 

 basin 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 inter- 

 ested in how Bonneville funding 

 may be used within that prov- 

 ince. Lead groups are selected 

 for each subbasin to develop sub- 

 basin summaries or, where com- 

 pleted and adopted by the Coun- 

 cil, review subbasin plans to 

 identify fish and w ildlife project 

 needs that may be proposed for 

 BonncN illc funding for the next 

 three years 



• Fish and wildlife needs (from 

 a summary or plan) are made 

 widely available, and Bonnev ille 

 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 oi' 

 results to date, and briefings on 

 background documents. Ongo- 

 ing projects will also submit all 

 relevant planning, research, and 

 background documents. Spon- 

 sors of new projects submit pro- 



46 



^LUMBIA RIVER BASIN FiSH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM 



