9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 1/13

Summary and Guide for Public Comment

The Region's Fish and Wildlife Project Selection Process

How Public Money Helps Save Salmon and Other Species

Fish and Wildlife Project Selection Is No Simple Task

Fish & Wildlife Project Selection Process

Fish and Wildlife Species Of the Columbia Basin

Economics and Proposed Projects

Independent Scientific Review Panel

Executive Summary

General Review of the Implementation Process

Recommendations

General Recommendations

Recommendations Related to the Review of the Fish and Wildlife Program

Who?s Who In the Project Selection Process

Maps

CBFWA Recommended FY 1998 Anadromous Fisheries Projects Recommended Per Sub­basin

CBFWA Recommended FY 1998 Anadromous Fisheries Projects Dollars Recommended Per Sub­basin

Fact Sheet

The Region?s Fish and Wildlife

Project Selection Process

A Guide To Public Comment

Nearly 50 different species of fish and wildlife were affected by the construction of the 31 federal dams

that dot the landscape of the Northwest.

How would you use $127 million every year to save the Northwest?s salmon and other fish and wildlife? It may sound like a

question you never thought you would have to answer, but as planners and managers implement changes to the Northwest?s

fish and wildlife recovery effort, your opinions and ideas may be worth more than you think.

Everyone agrees that $127 million is a lot of money. Unfortunately, mitigating all the changes development has made to the

Columbia River Basin?s fish and wildlife populations is a lot of work.

Nearly 50 different species of fish and wildlife were affected by the construction of the 31 federal dams that dot the

landscapes of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. And, nearly 50 different states, agencies, tribes and governments

are involved in making decisions about what to do about it.

So, where does the money for fish and wildlife recovery come from, and who decides how it is spent? The following pages

help answer those important questions. In addition, you will find information about how to contact the planners, biologists,

engineers and researchers who are leading the effort to ensure that the Northwest has healthy populations of salmon and
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 2/13

other fish and wildlife and low­cost, reliable electricity well into the future.

To learn more, read on...

Fact Sheet

How Public Money Helps Save

Salmon and Other Species

The Northwest?s Fish & Wildlife Project Selection Process

A portion of the money Bonneville earns from selling electricity is dedicated to paying for projects designed to protect and

enhance salmon and other fish and wildlife populations.

Through the Northwest Power Planning Council (an agency of the four Northwest states), the Columbia Basin Fish and

Wildlife Authority (an agency of the region?s state, tribal and federal fish and wildlife managers) and the Bonneville Power

Administration, the Northwest reviews, selects, and implements publicly funded projects designed to protect and restore fish

and wildlife.

Why? Because salmon and other fish and wildlife are an important part of the Northwest?s heritage. In addition, treaties

with Northwest Indian tribes reserved the tribes? rights to fish in the river. The United States and Canada also have a treaty

that commits the United States to rebuilding Columbia River salmon runs. To fulfill treaty obligations, the United States

must find a way to restore the species that have been affected by dams and other development.

That?s where the Bonneville Power Administration comes in. Bonneville is a federal agency that markets electricity

produced by the federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. A portion of the money Bonneville earns from selling electricity

is dedicated to paying for projects designed to protect and enhance salmon and other fish and wildlife populations.

Under a 1995 agreement among the federal government, the region?s tribes and Bonneville, the current fish and wildlife

budget allocates approximately $127 million annually to these projects (about 3 percent of Bonneville?s average annual

revenues of approximately $3 billion). Because Bonneville is a federal agency, the project money must be allocated in a

public process. What follows is a short description of that process.

The Fish and Wildlife Program

The Northwest Power Planning Council works with tribal, federal, state, regional and local governments; as well as industry,

environmental groups and interested citizens to define the region?s fish and wildlife recovery goals and to develop a

framework for reviewing and selecting fish and wildlife recovery projects.

Each project paid for with money from the Bonneville Power Administration must be consistent with the Council?s

program. To ensure the program is based on the most up­to­date information, it is reviewed at least once every five years.

The Council currently is considering ways to update the 1994 program.

Once the goals and regional framework are in place, the region?s fish and wildlife managers and the public suggest specific

measures to help the region meet its fish and wildlife goals.

Project Proposals

The Power Planning Council reviews and approves project selection criteria developed by the region?s fish and wildlife

managers through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.

Once the criteria are approved, Bonneville solicits specific project proposals from fish and wildlife agencies, universities,

local governments and others. CBFWA, the Council, Bonneville, Trout Unlimited and the Public Power Council then hold a

public review of the proposals to give the public a chance to review the proposals and helps the region?s fish and wildlife

managers refine and prioritize the recovery projects.

The region?s fish and wildlife managers, again through CBFWA, then undertake the challenging task of developing a list of

the highest priority projects, which they forward to the Power Planning Council and to a group of independent scientists

called the Independent Scientific Review Panel for additional review.

During the 1996 prioritization effort, more than 400 proposals totaling some $270 million were submitted for possible
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 3/13

funding. The region had $127 million to work with.

Scientific Scrutiny

Based on a recent amendment to the Northwest Power Act, the Council created an 11­member panel of independent

scientists to review fish and wildlife recovery projects recommended by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.

All 11 scientists were nominated for the panel by the National Academy of Sciences. The panel is designed to ensure that

the Council obtains sound, objective scientific input into its decisions about fish and wildlife recovery measures in the

Columbia River Basin and that public funds are used for only the most scientifically credible projects.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews the projects to ensure they are:

? Consistent with the Council?s fish and wildlife program;

? Based on sound science principles;

? Benefit fish and wildlife; and, that they

? Have clearly defined objectives and outcomes with provisions for monitoring and evaluating results.

Public Review

Following the scientific review, the Council analyzes the recommended projects, conducts public consultations and invites

comments on the projects themselves and on the scientific review.

During the 1996 process, the Council received comments from parties as diverse as the Public Power Council, the Columbia

River Alliance, Oregon Trout and Bonneville. The Council will accept public comments for at least 30 days after receiving

the managers? recommendations.

The fish and wildlife managers then have an opportunity to review the comments and make changes to their

recommendations.

Cost­Effectiveness Review

The Northwest Power Planning Council must determine whether the proposed projects are cost­effective. The Council

conducts its own analysis, and also established an Independent Economic Analysis Board to provide advice on and improve

cost analysis of fish and wildlife recovery measures. The panel?s advice helps the Council conduct annual cost­effectiveness

reviews of the proposed projects.

Approving Projects

When the Council is satisfied the proposed projects are consistent with the goals and objectives of its fish and wildlife plan,

are based on sound science principles, employ cost­effective measures, consider ocean conditions, and have been thoroughly

reviewed by the public, it recommends that Bonneville fund them. Bonneville has sole authority to select project contractors,

define the scope of work and negotiate budgets and contract terms. Bonneville employs a staff of contract officers and

project managers to write, oversee and manage individual projects recommended by the Council.

Project Oversight

To ensure its plan is effectively implemented, the Council periodically selects individual projects for additional review. Last

year the Council used its continuing oversight process to reduce the cost of several projects by hundreds of thousands of

dollars and to re­direct the savings to other worthwhile efforts.

Fact Sheet

Fish and Wildlife Project Selection

Is No Simple Task

A List of Answers to Common Questions
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 4/13

Q. Where does the $127 million spent on fish and wildlife projects every year come from?

A. Under a 1995 agreement among the Bonneville Power Administration, the federal government and the region?s tribes,

Bonneville must dedicate an average of $127 million a year to implementation of the Council?s fish and wildlife program.

Bonneville is a federal agency that obtains revenues by marketing the electricity produced from the federal dams in the

Columbia River Basin.

Q. Who decides which projects to fund?

A. Projects are reviewed by the region?s fish and wildlife managers through an organization called the Columbia Basin Fish

and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). CBFWA provides recommendations to the Power Planning Council. The Council uses a

group of independent scientists to review the recommendations. After the scientific review, the Council conducts a costeffectiveness evaluation to ensure the projects make the best use of the public?s money; considers the impacts ocean

conditions might have on the projects? success; and, solicits public comments. After the Council finishes its review, it

makes recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration. Bonneville then selects contractors to do the work.

Q. How many projects receive money from Bonneville every year?

A. The number of projects varies depending on the cost of those selected. For Fiscal Year 1997, about 400 project proposals

were reviewed. Ultimately, only 224 were recommended for funding. Many major initiatives, for example, construction of a

new hatchery, are made up of several individual projects. For this reason, the actual number of major initiatives is less than

224.

Q. What are the criteria for determining which projects receive support?

A. The fish and wildlife managers are responsible, through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, for developing

the criteria for reviewing and prioritizing projects designed to implement the region?s fish and wildlife plan. Detailed

descriptions of the criteria used are available from CBFWA. Generally, the criteria include: priority species; cost

considerations; project integration and partnerships; cost­effectiveness; consistency with the Council?s fish and wildlife

program; long­term manageability; connectivity with existing efforts and scientific viability, among other things.

Q. Who are project sponsors accountable to once their projects are approved?

A. Bonneville has sole authority to oversee contracting and management of projects. However, the Power Planning Council

periodically selects projects for additional scrutiny. In addition, even ongoing projects are reviewed annually.

Q. Can a project be altered once it has received funds?

A. Project sponsors may make small changes in their project (plus or minus 10 percent of particular budget line items) after

consulting with Bonneville. For larger changes, a project must go back for review by the fish and wildlife managers and the

Power Planning Council.

Q. Is there room for my voice to be heard in the project selection process?

A. Absolutely! Because Bonneville is a public agency, fish and wildlife project money must be allocated in a public process.

The Northwest Power Planning Council accepts public comments on the managers? and scientists? project

recommendations. For the dates, times, locations and deadlines for public comments on project recommendations, contact

the Council and ask for the public affairs division.

Fact Sheet

Fish & Wildlife Project

Selection Process

Timeline

Here are the key dates in the process of selecting projects for Fiscal Year 1998:

Dec. 1, 1996 to Feb. 1, 1997 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority reviews Fiscal Year 98 projects.

March 7 to April 7 New project proposals prepared and submitted to the Basin Authority.
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 5/13

June 1 Basin Authority submits projects to Council and Independent Scientific Review Panel.

July 15 Independent Scientific Review Panel submits its review to the Council.

July 15 to Aug. 28 Cost­effectiveness review

Review of ocean conditions

Public comment (written comments due by August 21st)

Additional Council review.

Aug. 29 to Sept. 9 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority revises its recommendations as necessary, based on public

comments, scientific review and cost­effectiveness review.

Sept. 15 Council decides which projects to recommend to Bonneville.

Sept. 16 to Oct. 1 Bonneville negotiates with project contractors.

Oct. 1 Fiscal year 1998 begins.

Ongoing Council conducts individual project reviews, managment audits.

Fact Sheet

Fish and Wildlife Species

Of the Columbia Basin

Council Program Helps More Than Salmon

The Northwest Power Planning Council?s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program is designed to protect, mitigate

and enhance fish and wildlife, and related spawning grounds and habitat, of the Columbia River Basin that have been

affected by hydroelectric dams. A partial list of the fish and wildlife species that annual projects are designed to help

includes:

Anadromous fish

Spring, summer and fall chinook salmon

Coho salmon

Sockeye salmon

Chum salmon

Steelhead

Resident fish

Rainbow trout

Bull trout

Lahontan trout

Westslope cutthroat trout

Redband trout

Brook trout

White sturgeon

Burbot

Kokanee salmon

Walleye

Yellow perch

Largemouth bass

Wildlife

Elk

Black bear

Cougar

Mule deer
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 6/13

White­tailed deer

Pygmy rabbit

River otter

Grizzly bear

Bighorn sheep

Birds

Great blue heron

Northern spotted owl

Ruffed grouse

Band­tailed pigeon

Bald eagle

Sharp­tailed grouse

White pelican

Swainson?s hawk

Ring­necked pheasant

Black­capped chickadee

Mallard duck

Readhead duck

Peregrine falcon

Pileated woodpecker

Fact Sheet

Economics and Proposed Projects

Evaluating Cost­Effectiveness

Council Responds to Congressional Concerns

A recent amendment to the Northwest Power Act requires the Northwest Power Planning Council to conduct a costeffectiveness evaluation of proposed fish and wildlife projects before those projects receive funding.

The Council is initiating a number of actions to ensure fish and wildlife projects make the best use of public resources

To conduct the cost­effectiveness evaluation for proposed 1998 projects, the Power Planning Council called on its panel of

nine independent economists, the Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB), to assist the Council?s staff in the

development of a cost­effectiveness methodology.

As a first step, the staff is working with the IEAB on a cost­effectiveness methodology. The draft methodology analyzes the

possibilities and challenges associated with conducting a cost­effectiveness review for fish and wildlife projects. A nearfinal version of the methodology will be presented to the Council at its August meeting along with a comment letter from

the IEAB.

To begin implementing the cost­effectiveness methodology, the Council is initiating a number of actions to ensure fish and

wildlife projects make the best use of public resources and to satisfy the Power Act amendment. Those actions include:

? Implementing an independent scientific review to provide guidance regarding which projects are likely to provide the most

benefits to fish and wildlife. The independent science review also will focus attention on monitoring and evaluation of

projects, another step to more effective management of the fish and wildlife program.

? Conducting an independent audit of the contracting process the Bonneville Power Administration uses to award and

manage project funds. The audit will help the Council ensure that proper controls are in place at every step of project

implementation and that the information necessary to ensure project accountability is readily available.

? Developing a comprehensive array of project and fish and wildlife program costs, including out­year budget needs.

? Supporting Bonneville?s use of an independent contractor to provide a check on the accuracy of capital cost estimates for

construction­related projects and to provide suggestions for how to cut those costs while achieving the same objectives.

? Continuing individual project reviews, in which questions about the scope, effectiveness and other issues related to
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 7/13

specific projects are scrutinized by the Council and its staff.

? Considering recommendations for further cost­effectiveness reforms in the project selection process from the Independent

Scientific Review Panel, the IEAB, the independent contracting audit and the public. Examples of these recommendations

might include greater emphasis on independent peer review, competitive bid procedures, eliminating potential or perceived

conflicts of interest, and improved monitoring and evaluation.

? Working with the Drawdown Regional Economic Group to refine estimates of the opportunity costs of various recovery

alternatives. That is, the broader economic effects of recovery actions on power, navigation, irrigation, and the rest of the

region?s economy.

Fact Sheet

Independent Scientific Review Panel

Review of Proposed FY 98 Projects

Executive Summary

ISRP Report 97­1

Review of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

as directed by the 1996 amendment to the Power Act

Richard N. Williams, Chair

James Lichatowich, CoChair

Peter A. Bisson

Charles C. Coutant

Robert Francis

Daniel Goodman

Nancy J. Huntly

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

Jack A. Stanford

Susan S. Hanna

July 15, 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. General Review of the Implementation Process

Columbia Basin fish (anadromous and resident) and wildlife populations have been in decline for a century. The decline has

been broadly recognized as serious for at least five decades, and large investments have been made over that period of time

in attempts to halt and reverse the decline. With the first ESA listing of a Columbia Basin salmon stock in 1991, the

awareness and concern intensified, and the investments in recovery and mitigation increased even further. In FY98, the

direct investment in the Council?s program is about $143 million/year (CBFWA 1997) and flow manipulation to enhance

survival of migrating salmon smolts creates an indirect cost due to foregone electrical power generation that may amount to

an additional $150­180 million/year (NPPC 1994). In spite of these expenditures, the salmon continue to decline and

additional listings under the federal Endangered Species Act have been proposed.

Against this background of apparent failure, it is logical to ask whether there is some basic qualitative flaw in the recovery

and mitigation efforts, or whether the failure is due to insufficiency in the amount of the investment. It was in this mix of

uncertainties that the Northwest Power Act was amended to require an evaluation of the program and its implementation.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) was formed in January 1997 to implement that evaluation. We have,

during our first six months of operation as a committee, reached the following general conclusions:

? There is a noticeable discrepancy between the mix of projects actually funded and the ISRP?s interpretation of the intent

and priorities in the FWP

? There is a somewhat greater discrepancy between the mix of projects actually funded and the Fish and Wildlife Program

(FWP), if the recommendations from recent scientific panels (Snake River Recovery Team, Upstream, Return to the River,
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 8/13

and the National Fish Hatchery Review Panel) are considered.

? Although the Council and BPA have project and proposal tracking systems that are adequate for administrative purposes,

they did not provide adequate information for a detailed and comprehensive analysis of proposal quality, project quality, or

program accomplishments.

? If changes in the tracking and information system are made, and if a new annual funding cycle is announced soon enough,

it will be possible to conduct a detailed review of individual projects and program implementation in 1998.

B. Recommendations

As a result of our review of the FWP and its implementation in 1997, the ISRP reports the following recommendations to

the Council. The bases for these recommendations are in the text of the report. The first set of general recommendations

concern overall program administration. Their implementation would improve the ability of the ISRP to conduct an overall

review of the program or improve its implementation. The remaining group of recommendations are related to Sections 5, 7,

10, and 11 of the FWP. Recommendations are listed first by a Section and sub­section identifier, indicating the location of

each recommendation within the body of the report. In the Executive Summary, the ISRP recommendation is in normal

type, with supporting text in italics.

General Recommendations

I.D.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council adopt its "Integrated Framework for Fish and Wildlife Management in the

Columbia River Basin" and use it to structure and filter proposed measures for inclusion in the FWP as part of the

forthcoming amendment process. This framework is key to the development of a scientifically based and adaptive process to

evaluate and prioritize projects on an annual basis.

II.B.1 The ISRP recommends that proposal format require more detail on experimental and sampling design, monitoring,

evaluation, and other analyses. The current guidelines tend to emphasize compliance with measures and priorities and with

federal and other regulations. These must be part of the judging of proposals, but more detail is needed to judge relative

scientific merit and probable ef ectiveness.

II.B.2 The ISRP recommends that Council and BPA staff work with the ISRP to develop a uniform set of standards and

policies for review of new and continuing project proposals.

II.B.3 The ISRP recommends that annual project evaluations based on renewal proposals (i.e., project summaries) be

supplemented with less frequent detailed peer reviews of projects along the lines of recommendations of the SRG to BPA in

"Guide to Project Peer Review" (February 10, 1994). Any project that continues for 3­5 years would be subject to this

detailed peer review, which would aid in annual funding decisions

III.A.1 The ISRP recommends increased attention by the Council to a more information­rich accounting and reporting

system to facilitate the prioritization of ongoing and needed work. This should be accomplished by fall 1997 to be of use in

the next round of ISRP evaluations.

III.A.2 The ISRP recommends the Council fund implementation of the comprehensive management review as described in

measure 3.1E of the FWP.

III.A.3 The ISRP recommends that Council specify clearly the intent of Program­wide coordination and reinforce this by

specifying coordinated review, rather than appointing separate sub­program review boards. This will be particularly

important for successful implementation of the watershed­based approach to habitat restoration called for in Section 7 and

wildlife habitat protection called for in Section 11 of the FWP.

III.A.4 The ISRP recommends that the FWP recognize and emphasize sustaining a "normative ecosystem", which includes

not only anadromous and resident fish, but wildlife such as bald eagles, river otters, seabirds, marine mammals, and bears,

as well as less conspicuous wildlife, such as songbirds, bats, and burrowing rodents.

IV.B.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council implement a competitive grants program as part of the FWP.

IV.D.1 The ISRP recommends the Council adopt an annual project review and selection process with a double track for

competitive and targeted proposals (including project renewal proposals).
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 9/13

Recommendations Related to the Review of the Fish and Wildlife Program

III.B.1 The ISRP recommends that all migration­related research, monitoring and other management activities be

coordinated and integrated across agencies and tribes through explicitly stated and complementary measures in the FWP,

NMFS, FWS

and tribal recovery plans.

III.B.2 The ISRP recommends quantitative evaluation of assumptions (e.g., flow­survival) upon which structural (e.g.,

passage facilities) and operational (e.g., flow augmentation) measures in the FWP and Recovery Plan are based.

This should include:

a) risk­benefit analysis of tradeof s required to create normative conditions

and habitat in the mainstems, and

b) thorough peer­review and evaluation of the ef ectiveness of high­cost actions

including:

1) routine monitoring of juvenile outmigrants

2) predator control bounty

3) biological studies of gas supersaturation

III.B.3 The ISRP recommends quantification of food web dynamics and their associated effects on juvenile salmonid

ecology in mainstem reservoirs.

III.B.4 The ISRP recommends that the Council provide clear direction as to the desired implementation sequence among

anadromous fish related measures within Section 7 of the FWP.

III.B.5 The ISRP recommends that the FWP include an explicit measure to develop approaches and rationale for reregulation of flows in tributaries to establish normative habitat conditions, as recommended in Return to the River.

III.B.6 The ISRP recommends that habitat policies and objectives be established for each major subbasin and coordinated

with overall production goals for the subbasin.

III.B.7 The ISRP recommends that development of reliable watershed assessment procedures be given high priority.

III.B.8 The ISRP recommends that the Council not approve funding for the construction and operation of new artificial

propagation programs in the FY98 program until a comprehensive review of existing hatchery programs adequately

addresses Measures 7.0D, 7.1A, 7.1C, 7.1F, and until at least a preliminary policy addressing Measure 7.1D has been

drafted.

III.B.9 To prevent a complete moratorium on new production, the ISRP recommends that the Council permit funding for an

individual project only if the project proponents can demonstrate they have taken measures 7.0D, 7.1A, 7.1C, and 7.1F into

account in the program design and the Council concurs. To ensure that standard is met, the individual projects should be

funded only after a positive recommendation from an independent peer review panel.

III.B.10 The ISRP recommends the Council implement a comprehensive review of artificial propagation in the basin. That

review should be initiated as soon as possible and cover all propagation activities including hatcheries funded by sources

outside the FWP.

III.B.11 The ISRP recommends that watershed assessment precede implementation of restoration projects so that probable

limiting habitat factors be identified and a reasonable expectation of restoration effectiveness exists.

III.B.12 The ISRP recommends that the Council provide clear direction as to the desired implementation sequence among

related measures for resident fish within Section 10 of the FWP.

III.B.13 The ISRP recommends that the Council require a basin­wide systematic inventory of remaining native resident fish

populations and their status, upon which opportunities for restoration and rebuilding native resident fish populations can be

identified and prioritized.

III.B.14 The ISRP recommends that measures in sections 10.1 and 10.2, which focus on planning, development of policy

guidelines, and assessments of remaining diversity and population status in resident fish populations, receive greater

attention and project funding.
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 10/13

III.B.15 The ISRP recommends that resident fish artificial propagation facilities and projects be included in the

comprehensive review of artificial propagation as described and recommended above in ISRP Recommendation III.B.10.

III.B.16 The ISRP recommends that substitution projects, particularly those using non­native species, be viewed cautiously

because their implementation may pose significant threats to native resident fish species. Therefore, individual substitution

projects should be reviewed by the artificial production review panel (see ISRP Recommendation III.B.9), prior to

authorization.

III.B.17 The ISRP recommends that the Council provide clear direction as to the desired implementation sequence among

related measures for wildlife within Section 11 of the FWP.

III.B.18 The ISRP recommends that the Wildlife Program include an explicit scientific research component. This would be

likely to increase mitigation success and would make evaluation and adjustment of the Program over time much more

feasible.

III.B.19 The ISRP recommends that additional scientific criteria be added to those currently used to prioritize proposals for

mitigation projects. For instance, the geomorphologic suitability of a site to sustain Habitat Units anticipated to be gained

should be considered in prioritizing mitigation projects.

III.B.20 The ISRP recommends that specific mechanisms be developed to coordinate the FWP with other programs that

have significant impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat in the Columbia River Basin.

III.B.21 The ISRP recommends that a separate Scientific Review Group for the Wildlife Program not be formed, but rather

that a single Review Group (currently the ISAB) be charged with review of both Fish and Wildlife issues within the FWP.

This should improve program coordination, which will likely remain dif icult in such a large and complicated program as

the FWP.

III.B.22 The ISRP recommends that acquisition of land and of land easements continue to be given a high priority in the

Wildlife Program, as habitat is necessary for wildlife populations and can be quantified reasonably by HEP in accord with

obligations of BPA to various areas and groups.

III.B.23 The ISRP recommends that the Program give increased attention and priority to research designed to evaluate

effectiveness of habitat measures in terms of direct assessment of wildlife populations and their ecology.

III.B.24 The ISRP recommends that Council include a portion of the Wildlife Program funds each year within the

competitive grants program for research that could contribute to the benefit of wildlife. Innovative monitoring and research

proposals could be encouraged through this part of the Program.

III.B.25 The ISRP recommends that monitoring, which now is based on the unit of mitigation, habitat (measured as HUs

[Habitat Units], determined from HEP [Habitat Evaluation Procedure]), be extended to include a requirement for some

degree of direct monitoring of target (and perhaps some non­target) wildlife populations.

Fact Sheet

Who?s Who

In the Project Selection Process

A list of Contacts for Comments or More Information

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

Brian J. Allee, Ph.D., executive director

2501 S.W. First Avenue, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97201.

Phone: 503­326­7031

Fax: 503­326­7033

E­Mail: tana@cbfwf.org

WWW: http://www.cbfwf.org/~cbfwf

CBFWA?s participating members:

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 11/13

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Burns­Paiute Tribe

Coeur D?Alene Tribe

Colville Confederated Tribes

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Kootenai Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe

Shoshone­Bannock Tribes

Shoshone­Paiute Tribes

Spokane Tribe

Yakama Indian Nation

Independent Scientific Review Panel

Willis McConnaha, liaison

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204

Phone: 800­452­5161

Fax: 503­795­3370

WWW: http://www.nwcouncil.org (click on fish and wildlife issues)

The ISRP?s members:

Peter Bisson, Ph.D., research fish biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Olympia, Washington

Charles Coutant, Ph.D. senior research ecologist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Robert Francis, Ph.D., professor and director, Fisheries Research Institute, U of W

Dan Goodman, Ph.D., professor of biology, Montana State University

Susan Hanna, Ph.D., associate professor, agricultural and resource economics, Oregon State University

Nancy Huntly, Ph.D., associate professor, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University

Jim Lichatowich, M.S., consultant, former assistant chief of fisheries, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Lyman McDonald, Ph.D., president, senior biometrician, Western Ecosystems Technology, Cheyenne, WY.

Brian Riddell, Ph.D., section head for salmon stock assessment & enhancement evaluation, Pacific Biological Station,

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo, British Columbia

Jack Stanford, Ph.D., Bierman Professor, director, Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana

Richard N. Williams, Ph.D., graduate af iliate faculty, Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho

Independent Economic Analysis Board

Terry Morlan, liaison

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204

Phone: 800­452­5161,

Fax: 503­795­3370

E­Mail: ieab@nwcouncil.org

WWW: http://www.nwcouncil.org (click on fish and wildlife issues)

IEAB members:

Kenneth Boire, consulting economist, former chief economist at the North Pacific Division

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Emery N. Castle, Ph.D., professor emeritus of economics, Oregon State University

Joel Hamilton, Ph.D., professor of agricultural economics and adjunct professor of statistics, University of Idaho

Daniel D. Huppert, Ph.D., associate professor, Institute for Marine Studies, U of Wash.

Lon Peters, Ph.D., president, Northwest Economic Research, Inc., former senior economist for the Public Power Council

Jack Richards, Ph.D., instructor of economics, Portland State University; retired from the National Marine Fisheries

Service
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 12/13

Anthony Scott, Ph.D., professor emeritus of economics, University of British Columbia.

Paul Sorenson, founder and principal of Belyea, Sorenson, Trottier & Associates, an economics consulting firm in Bothell,

Washington.

Bonneville Power Administration

Robert D. Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division

905 NE 11th ? EWP, Portland, Oregon, 97232

Phone: 503­230­5215

E­Mail: fwprojects@bpa.gov

WWW: http://www.bpa.gov (click on "corporate" then "fish & wildlife")

Northwest Power Planning Council

Steve Crow, Executive Director

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97204

Phone: 800­452­5161

Fax: 503­795­3370

E­Mail: comments@nwcouncil.org

WWW: http://www.nwcouncil.org (click on "F&W Project Selection Process")
9/20/2016 guide.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120101163457/http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/1997/RiverFuture.htm 13/13