Overarching Principles for the Proposed Project Review Process

1. Implements BPA’s portion of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program for anadromous fish, resident fish, and wildlife, including subbasin plans and other planning documents associated with the Program.
2. Allows the flexibility to incorporate BPA’s ESA requirements and relevant agreements.
3. Ensures review of projects consistent with the Northwest Power Act, Section 4(h)(10)(D), including those identified in the BiOp and long-term agreements.
4. Establishes a staggered categorical and/or geographic review process.
5. Recognizes differences in project types, specifically those with long-term funding commitments vs. shorter term implementation (e.g., habitat). Each type may be set on different, but integrated, funding and review paths.
6. Establishes and communicates timelines, processes, expectations, and budget allocations to provide stability for project sponsors and decision makers.
7. Incorporates information on non-BPA funded fish and wildlife work taking place.
8. Focuses on program performance by linking program spending with limiting factors
9. Increases transparency and accountability of project deliverables, durations, reporting requirements, performance metrics, and expectations.
10. Develops unified recommendations/decisions from the Council and Bonneville by jointly formulating and managing the review processes, working through areas of disagreement, and developing joint staff work products for Council and BPA-management consideration.

Roles and Responsibilities

1. The Council and Bonneville Power Administration. The Council and BPA jointly establish project review objectives and selection processes (including categorical and geographic reviews); establish mechanisms for gathering regional input into processes and funding priorities and resolve any disputes between various project recommendations; develops unified recommendations/decisions. In addition the Council manages the implementation of local reviews and ensures consistency between geographic reviews; and BPA provides reporting information on project performance (e.g., PISCES), conducts in lieu reviews, and implements decisions.
2. Fish and wildlife managers. The process will include participation of the fish and wildlife managers in the process planning phase. They will assist in developing project selection criteria, integrating existing fish and wildlife management plans, and updating biological information in the subbasin plans. The process will also solicit the input of managers to help ensure that proposed projects address key limiting factors, and provide information on project linkages to fish and wildlife benefits and management priorities.
3. Action Agencies. The action agencies will be asked to provide information on projects needed to implement ESA responsibilities, including proposed projects and mitigation actions implemented outside the BPA direct funded program that relate to the Program.
4. Local review groups. The process will invite local participation in the development and coordination of geographic reviews, and rely on the groups to provide information on habitat project priorities (existing and future), feasibility of implementation, and information on the other non-BPA funded fish and wildlife activities talking place in the subbasin.
5. Independent Scientific Review Panel. The ISRP will review new and existing projects to determine if the projects are based on sound science, benefit fish and wildlife, include provisions for monitoring and evaluating results, and are consistent with the program. The ISRP will also provide scientific insight into specific scientific questions raised in categorical and geographic reviews.