Three-Step Review Process. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

1

Three-Step Review Process 

 I. Types of Projects Requiring the Review Process

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

been developed. When the Council recommends a proposal as part of a funding recommendation, it 

will also identify which of the following triggers applies to direct the project into the step review. 

This will occur as a comment as part of the funding recommendations to Bonneville in association to 

a particular solicitation. The goal in making that finding and statement at the time of a Council 

recommendation is to clearly articulate whether or not the proposal will be subject to the three-step 

review process and what the expectations (e.g., time certain deliverables) will be as a condition of 

future funding. 

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 

For other projects the Council may request a review based on the following triggers: (a) 

construct a facility that costs more than $1,000,000 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 multi-contractual effort, (e) new proposal that is outside the current 

solicitation and review cycle, (f) additional review or fix-it-loop is requested, and/or (g) the action is 

a substantial deviation from the adopted subbasin plan. 

II. 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. 
Three-Step Review Process. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

2

Development Phase Design Phase Variance Expected1

Step 1 Conceptual +/- 35 to 50 % 

Step 2 Progress Review/ Preliminary +/- 25 to 35 % 

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

 The conceptual 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/preliminary 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. 

III. 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 and status of the proposed 

project a combination review may occur and address all relevant review elements in one submittal. 

For less complex and costly proposals a multiple phase review (i.e., Step 1, 2 and 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 

 

1

 Degree of variance at each phase will be dependent on the size and complexity of the project. 2

 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. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

3

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. 

IV. 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. 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 adopted subbasin and the 

desired end-state 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) 

• 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)
Three-Step Review Process. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

4

• 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) 

• 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, including appropriate value engineering review, of the proposed 

facilities (Step 2) 

• provide a final design of the proposed facilities 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) 
Three-Step Review Process. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

5

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

facilities (Step 2) 

• provide a final design of the proposed facilities consistent with previous submittal documents 

and preliminary design (Step 3) 
Three-Step Review Process. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

6

 Attachment I: Schedule for the Step 1 Review Process

Week3

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

Fish and Wildlife Committee (packet) 

3 - 8 Additional materials provided to the ISRP, if necessary 

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

draft issue paper 

6 (Thursday) Fish and Wildlife Committee recommendation to Council (packet) 

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

comment 

8 (Friday) ISRP findings submitted to NPPC 

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

Meeting 

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

meeting 

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

16-17 NPPC staff prepares a summary of comments and potential 

alternatives for decision 

18 (Thursday) NPPC staff provides summary of comments and potential 

alternatives to Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider 

recommendation (packet) 

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

recommendation 

22 (Thursday) NPPC staff provides decision memo with Fish and Wildlife 

Committee recommendation to Council (packet) 

24 (Wednesday) Council considers approval of master plan

 

3

 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. NPCC, November 2006, document 2006-21

7

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

Review Processes

Week4 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 (Thursday) NPPC staff provides draft version of potential alternatives for 

recommendations (packet) 

7 (Tuesday) Fish and Wildlife Committee considers potential alternatives 

for recommendation to Council 

9 (Thursday) NPPC staff provides decision memo with Fish and Wildlife 

Committee recommendation to Council (packet) 

11 (Wednesday) Council considers approval of project step 

________________________________________ 

w:\mf\ww\hatchery\3step\revised step 2007-2009\102406fy2007-2009stepprocess.doc 

 

4

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

minimum amount of time required.