Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

1

I. Major Project Review

A. Introduction

Any new project funded through the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 

must be thoroughly reviewed in advance to ensure its design, construction and proposed operations are 

compatible with the environment and consistent with financial planning for the subbasin where it is located 

and the Columbia Basin as a whole. This is particularly important for new artificial production programs and 

facilities. Cost-effectiveness, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, ecological 

interactions, and consistency with other plans are some of the issues that must be explored before a 

responsible decision can be made about the soundness of starting a new major artificial production project 

in a specific subbasin. The Council’s fish and wildlife program has a history of requiring a detailed “master 

plan” to address such issues in the absence of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document that 

provided enough information to evaluate major construction projects, such as new artificial production 

initiatives.

Starting in Fiscal Year 1998, the annual prioritization process for projects funded under the fish and 

wildlife program included a review by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), which the Council 

created in response to a 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act. During this initial review, the ISRP 

recommended a comprehensive basinwide review of artificial production. The ISRP recommended that 

until completion of that review, the Council “not approve funding for the construction and operation of new 

artificial propagation programs,” with this exception:

“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.”

Those specific sections of the Council’s 1995 Program directed that new artificial production 

programs should account for or address information being developed in 1) a comprehensive analysis of 

federal fish hatchery activities that was under way at the time1 (7.0D), 2) an evaluation of salmon survival in 

the Columbia River, the estuary and the near-shore ocean plume (7.1A), 3) an inventory of population 

status, life history and other data on wild and naturally spawning salmon populations (7.1C), and 4) an 

evaluation of the cumulative and systemwide impacts of then-existing and proposed artificial production 

activities on the ecology, genetics and other important characteristics of Columbia River Basin anadromous 

and resident fish (7.1F). 

 

1

 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: Impacts of Artificial Salmon and Steelhead Production 

Strategies in the Columbia River Basin, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Dec. 10, 1996.
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

2

B. Three-Step Review Process

The federal hatchery analysis, completed in December 1996, took the form of a Columbia 

basinwide programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) and as such, did not address specific 

hatchery programs or their impacts on specific populations or on the basin as a whole. Nor did the federal 

EIS recommend specific policies for future hatchery operations.

In July 1997, coincidental to the similar recommendation of the ISRP noted above, Congress 

directed the Council, with the assistance of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (this is a panel of 11 

scientists who advise both the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service), to conduct a thorough 

basinwide review of all federally funded artificial production programs and to recommend as part of this 

review 1) a coordinated policy for future operation of artificial production programs and 2) means of 

obtaining such a policy.

Two months later, in September 1997, the Council adopted a policy that built upon the master plan 

element of its program to ensure that 1) new artificial production projects would be considered by the 

Council while the Artificial Production Review was under way, 2) ensure these projects would be 

considered in the context of their roles and potential impacts within specific subbasins and 3) receive the 

detailed scrutiny recommended by the ISRP prior to approval. This policy is known as the “three-step 

review.” It calls for “new production initiatives” to follow a basic development process that has three main 

steps or phases: (Step 1) conceptual planning, represented under the 1995 Program primarily by master 

plan development and approval; (Step 2) preliminary design and cost estimation, and environmental (NEPA 

and ESA) review; and (Step 3) final design review prior to construction. In adopting the Three-Step 

Review Process, the Council agreed with the ISRP’s recommendation to make use of independent peer 

review for projects as they move through each stage of the process. 

Originally the three-step review was developed as an interim process until the Artificial Production 

Review (APR) was completed (Document 99-15). The 2000 Program adopted the APR and defined an 

initial and five-year review to ensure consistency with the strategies, scientific principles, and policies defined 

in the APR. The initial evaluation will be completed by January 2004, and reform measures are anticipated 

to be initiated by July 2006. Until then, the step review process will continue to assess the scientific 

foundation, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of artificial production initiatives. 

C. Major Project Review Approach

The Council has found that the step review process has provided an orderly way to develop

complex and large projects. Linking environmental review (i.e. NEPA) and funding commitments to specific 

phases has allowed the project sponsor and the Council to move from the conceptual to final design in 

steps, avoiding over commitment of resources at the early stages. Though this is not a new planning 

concept, and is consistent with industrial planning standards, the Council sees a need to clearly define and 

expand the process.
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

3

Though the step review process has thus far been limited to artificial production initiatives, other 

major projects currently existing and contemplated for the future could benefit. There are very substantial 

habitat initiatives, water optimization projects, and others that would benefit from the same type of stepped 

review and approval process as it has for artificial production projects. This is because they are often 

approved for initial funding with only a conceptual level of information. In addition, the emphasis on habitat 

protection, mitigation and restoration is central to the 2000 Program and Columbia Basin, and activities 

associated with habitat projects are becoming more costly and complex. Extension of the stepped review 

and approval concept to other major and costly initiatives will provide the same positive benefits to the 

development of habitat projects as it has for artificial production initiatives. By providing a sequential 

decision-making process for habitat initiatives, the Council can ensure that these projects also maintain their 

original intent and scope. 

The Council believes that the substantive elements of the step review could be improved by the 

2000 Program and will continue to provide the needed incremental points for the decision-makers to ensure 

scope and intent during the evaluation of the major project initiatives in the basin. This revision of the review 

process also allows the review process to be refined and clarity provided regarding the existing steps and 

the deliverables and details associated with each. The following sections provide the project review 

triggers, review process and schedule, design development definition, and review elements for the major 

project review process. 

 

II. Types of Projects Requiring the Review Process

In order to determine what proposal requires a review process, the following triggers have been 

developed. When the Council recommends a proposal, it will also identify which of the following triggers 

applies to direct the project into the step review. The goal in making that finding and statement at the time 

the Council recommends a project is to clearly articulate whether or not the proposal will be subject to the 

three-step review process.

A. Artificial Production Initiatives

Production initiatives will trigger a review when a project proposes any one of the following: (a) 

construct significant new production facilities; (b) begin planting fish in waters they have not been planted in 

before; (c) increase significantly the number of fish being introduced; (d) change stocks or the number of 

stocks, and/or (e) change the location of production facilities. It also includes initiation of funding existing 

facilities that were formerly funded otherwise.

B. Other Project Initiatives

Other project initiatives will trigger a review when a project proposes to: (a) construct a facility that 

costs more than $250,000 during the fiscal year; (b) phased engineering designs are required for contractual 

purposes; (c) proposed actions address the entire watershed; (d) action is a multi-agency and multicontractual effort, and/or (e) the action is a substantial deviation from a subbasin summary or subbasin plan.
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

4

III. Design Development Definition for Construction

As a capital construction project develops from a conceptual to final design, more detail and 

understanding is generated that can be analyzed. Several stages in this process can be identified and used 

by decision makers to ensure scope, intent and accuracy of cost. In adopting the major review process, the 

Council identified three convenient stopping points (i.e. steps). These steps in the developmental phase are 

far enough apart in the design/planning process to allow a meaningful amount of progress to take place, so 

that efforts are not restrictive, and still close enough to provide choices to be made before effort is 

expended on unrealistic or unrealized goals. These phases are in the following table.

Development Phase Design Phase Variance Expected2

Step 1 Conceptual/Preliminary +/- 35 to 50 %

Step 2 Progress Review +/- 25 to 35 %

Step 3 Detailed/Final +/- 10 to 15 %

The conceptual/preliminary phase (Step 1) can be considered largely the feasibility stage that is 

important in identifying all major components and elements and includes the initial attempts at laying out the 

components on the chosen site or proposal. Approximate structure size and layouts are presented, with 

rough plans and elevations, general electrical and piping layouts are identified, but with little detail. Cost 

estimates are general and often are based on costs from previous projects and comparable construction 

costs.

The progress review phase (Step 2) should identify any major difficulties in the design and proposal. 

At this point the proposal should provide the detail and the specifics to assure that all details will meet the 

intent and scope of the previous decision and ensure financial responsibility. In addition environmental 

review has been completed and any changes after this point should be minor.

At the detailed/final phase (Step 3) the design is ready to go out to bid. A detail and exhaustive 

review has been carried out, to assure that all details will meet operational requirements. The 100 percent 

cost estimate represents the best available estimate of construction costs for the project. A general 

contingency of 10 percent to 15 percent is specified as a line item in the cost estimate as a general 

contingency to cover unforeseen problems that may be encountered during construction.

IV. Review Process and Schedule

The review process will include an independent scientific review of the project sponsor’s answers to 

the review elements listed below. Depending on the nature of the proposed project a combination review 

may occur and address all relevant review elements in one submittal. For more complex and costly 

 

2

 Degree of variance at each phase will be dependent on the size and complexity of the project.
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

5

proposals a multiple phase review (i.e. Step 1, 2 and 3)3 would be more appropriate. This would entail a 

review of a submitted document (e.g. master plan) and the associated supporting information, and additional 

reviews that would include preliminary and detailed/final designs, remaining review elements, environmental 

review and answers to technical questions requested during the previous reviews. 

Review periods for project submittals can vary depending on the circumstances and nature 

surrounding any specific project. Generally the review schedule for the Step 1 process is 18 weeks 

(attachment I), and Step 2 and 3 reviews, and combination reviews (i.e. all elements reviewed) is nine 

weeks (attachment II). Due to the needed alignment to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Committee and 

Council meetings, this schedule is based on the minimum amount of time required. Council staff will review 

the results of the peer review with the project proponents and make recommendations to the Council.

V. Review Elements

An important part of the major project review process will include an independent scientific review 

of the responses to the technical elements listed below. The Council is looking for a full explanation of how 

the project is consistent with these elements. These elements reflect and refer to specific elements delineated 

under relevant sections in the fish and wildlife program (e.g. artificial production and subbasin assessment 

protocols). In addition, the independent scientists reviewing the project in the future will be applying these 

or similar standards as a reflection of the current state of the science. In addition, these elements may be 

supplemented with issues raised in previous reviews.

A. All Projects

All projects are expected to:

• address the relationship and consistencies of the proposed project to the eight scientific principles (see 

2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section B.2) (Step 1)

• describe the link of the proposal to other projects and activities in the subbasin and the desired endstate condition for the target subbasin (Step 1) 

• define the biological objectives (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Basinwide 

Provisions, Section C.2 (1) and (2), and Technical Appendix) with measurable attributes that define 

progress, provide accountability and track changes through time associated with this project (Step 1)

 

3

 The reviews for a specific project will be established during fiscal and provincial reviews. Generally, the steps for these 

projects will be based on the phase of the step process as follows: Step 1 -- conceptual planning, represented under the 

program primarily by master plan development and approval; Step 2 -- preliminary design and cost estimation, and 

environmental (NEPA and ESA) review; and Step 3 -- final design review prior to construction and operation.
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

6

• define expected project benefits (e.g. preservation of biological diversity, fishery enhancement, water 

optimization, and habitat protection) (Step 1)

• describe the implementation strategies (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Basinwide Provisions, Section D.2) as they relate to the current conditions and restoration potential of 

the habitat for the target species and the life stage of interest (Step 1)

• address the relationship to the habitat strategies (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section D.3) (Step 1)

• ensure that cost-effective alternate measures are not overlooked and include descriptions of alternatives 

for resolving the resource problem, including a description of other management activities in the 

subbasin, province and basin (Step 1) 

• provide the historical and current status of anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the subbasin 

most relevant to the proposed project (Step 1)

• describe current and planned management of anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the subbasin 

(Step 1)

• demonstrate consistency of the proposed project with National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plans 

and other fishery management and watershed plans (Step 1)

• describe the status of the comprehensive environmental assessment (Step 1 and 2)

• describe the monitoring and evaluation plan (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Basinwide Provisions, Section D.9) (Step 1, 2 and 3)

• describe and provide specific items and cost estimates for 10 Fiscal Years for planning and design (i.e. 

conceptual, preliminary and final), construction, operation and maintenance and monitoring and

evaluation (Step 1, 2 and 3)

B. Artificial Production Initiatives

Artificial production initiatives are expected to:

• address the relation and link to the artificial production policies and strategies (see 2000 Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section D.4 and Technical Appendix) (Step 1) 

• provide a completed Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) for the target population (s) 

(Step 1)

• describe the harvest plan (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Basinwide 

Provisions, Section D.5) (Step 1)
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

7

• provide a conceptual design of the proposed facilities, including an assessment of the availability and 

utility of existing facilities (Step 1)

• provide a preliminary design of the proposed facilities (Step 2)

• provide a final design of the proposed facilities, including appropriate value engineering review, 

consistent with previous submittal documents and preliminary design (Step 3)

C. Other Project Initiatives

Other major project initiatives are expected to:

• provide a conceptual design of the proposed strategies and/or facilities (Step 1)

• provide a preliminary design of the proposed strategies and/or facilities (Step 2)

• provide a final design of the proposed strategies and/or facilities, including appropriate value engineering 

review, consistent with previous submittal documents and preliminary design (Step 3)
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

8

 Attachment I: Schedule for the Step 1 Review Process

Week4 Description

1 (Monday) Proponents submits Master Plan to NPPC and Bonneville

1 – 2 NPPC staff review

2 (Monday) Bonneville/NPPC initiates peer review with the ISRP

2 (Wednesday) NPPC staff comments regarding master plan and draft issue paper to 

Fish and Wildlife Committee (packet)

3 - 7 Additional materials provided to the ISRP, if necessary

3 (Tuesday) NPPC Fish and Wildlife Committee reviews the master plan and

draft issue paper

5 (Wednesday) Fish and Wildlife Committee recommendation to Council (packet)

6 (Wednesday) NPPC considers releasing master plan and issue paper for review 

and comment

8 (Friday) ISRP findings submitted to NPPC

9 (Wednesday) NPPC takes comments on master plan and issue paper at Council 

Meeting

12 (Wednesday) NPPC takes comments on Master plan and Issue Paper at Council 

meeting

12 (Friday) Due date for all written comments on master plan and issue paper

13-14 NPPC staff prepares a summary of comments and potential 

alternatives for decision

14 (Wednesday) NPPC staff provides summary of comments and potential 

alternatives to Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider 

recommendation (packet)

15 (Tuesday) Fish and Wildlife Committee considers potential alternatives for 

recommendation

17 (Wednesday) NPPC staff provides decision memo with Fish and Wildlife 

Committee recommendation to Council (packet)

 

4

 Due to the needed alignment to the Fish and Wildlife Committee and Council meetings, this schedule is based on the 

minimum amount of time required
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

9

18 (Wednesday) Council considers approval of master plan
Three-Step Review Process as approved by Northwest Power Planning Council on October 18, 2001.

10

Attachment II: Schedule for the Step 2, 3 and Combined

Review Processes

Week5 Description

1 (Monday) Proponents submit to NPPC and Bonneville information and 

responses for technical questions as they relate to the appropriate 

step

1 NPPC staff review

2 (Monday) Bonneville/NPPC initiates peer review with the ISRP

3 (Monday) Additional materials provided to the ISRP, if necessary

4 (Friday) ISRP review findings submitted to NPPC staff

5 (Wednesday) NPPC staff provides draft version of potential alternatives for

recommendations (packet)

6 (Tuesday) Fish and Wildlife Committee considers potential alternatives for

recommendation to Council

8 (Wednesday) NPPC staff provides decision memo with Fish and Wildlife

Committee recommendation to Council (packet)

9 (Wednesday) Council considers approval of project step

________________________________________

w:\mf\ww\hatchery \3step\101801(a)step ap habitatelements.doc

 

5

 Due to the needed alignment to Fish and Wildlife Committee and Council meetings, this schedule is based on the 

minimum amount of time required.