FY 1999 AIWP - Response to ISRP recommendations

Response to Independent Scientific Review Panel recommendations

October 1998 | < back to work plan contents

Section 4(h)(11)(D)(v) of the Northwest Power Act calls on the Independent Scientific Review Panel to make recommendations to the Council concerning projects proposed to be funded through that portion of Bonneville's annual fish and wildlife budget that implements the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Subsection (vi) then requires the Council to "fully consider" the recommendations of the Scientific Panel when the Council makes its project funding recommendations to Bonneville, and "if the Council does not incorporate a recommendation of the Panel, the Council shall explain in writing its reasons for not accepting Panel recommendations." The Act does not specify a set of criteria or standards for the Council to apply in deciding whether to incorporate a Panel recommendation into the Council's funding recommendations or in explaining why the Council decided not to accept a Panel recommendation.

The Scientific Panel submitted its report and recommendations regarding the projects proposed for funding in Fiscal Year 1999 to the Council on June 15, 1998, Review of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program for Fiscal Year 1999 as directed by the 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act, Report No. ISRP98-1. Each Panel recommendation is set out below, followed by an explanation of the Council's response to that recommendation. (The numbering and organization are drawn directly from the panel's report, at pp. 3-7.) Almost all of the panel's recommendations were directly or indirectly addressed in the discussion of general policy issues above. Thus in most cases here the response simply refers back to these previous discussions for the Council's explanation as to how it has considered the panel's recommendation and why it has responded to the recommendation as it has.

1. The Review Process

II-C.1 To help make project peer review a routine part of the implementation of the FWP, the ISRP recommends revision and distribution of the SRG's guidelines on peer review of proposals and projects. The revisions should address problems in proposal quality identified in the 1997 and 1998 ISRP reviews.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issue No. 1. The Council left it to the Panel to decide what revisions if any are necessary to the SRG peer review guidelines, and will then ensure that the guidelines are distributed to project sponsors and others interested. The Council also recommended steps beyond the distribution of the guidelines to address the problems in proposal quality identified by the Scientific Panel.

V-A.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council communicate to the basin's project managers the importance of the annual proposals in determining its funding priorities. The Council should make it clear that inadequate proposals submitted in 1999 will not be funded.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issue No. 1. The Council did recommend actions that will communicate to the project managers the importance of the proposals. The Council decided not to state at this time that it will automatically recommend against funding for a project proposal labeled inadequate by the Scientific Panel in its Fiscal Year 2000 report. This may be what the Council ends up recommending next year, but the work described in the policy issue document needs to occur to set the stage for improved project descriptions.

V-B.2.b.1 The ISRP recommends that all the smolt monitoring activities be incorporated into an umbrella proposal that clearly justifies the various elements and defines their relationship to each other. The entire program should be subjected to programmatic review and placed on a multi-year funding track.

V-B.2.c.1 The ISRP recommends that the various projects related to the large scale use of coded-wire technology be incorporated into an umbrella proposal, subjected to independent review, and placed on a multi-year funding track.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 9 and as part of Issue No. 18a. The coded-wire tag program has been under review for the last few months, resulting in a series of recommendations discussed below for improving the management structure of the program, including grouping the different projects into one umbrella contract, and developing an appropriate protocol for the use of coded-wire tagging as part of broader monitoring and evaluation needs under the Council's Program. That work needs to occur before the coded-wire tag effort is ready for independent review and a multi-year review recommendation. The Council is in the process of developing, with the managers and Bonneville, an approach to multi-year review and funding. The Council hopes to begin review in 1999 of aggregated projects for the purpose of a multi-year recommendation. The Council has not yet decided which projects and programs to focus on first, and precisely how to group the projects, but the coded-wire tag activities, once they are better grounded in the Council's Program and regional monitoring and evaluation needs, are a good candidate for multi-year review.

V-B.2.c.2. The ISRP recommends that all the white sturgeon studies in the basin including headwaters be coordinated and subjected to independent review and placed on a multi-year funding track.

V-B.2.c.3 The ISRP recommends that the entire PATH program be subjected to independent review, the proposals more effectively coordinated and the entire set of proposals placed on a multi-year funding track.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issues No. 7 and 18a. The Council recommends that PATH be the subject of an independent scientific review this year by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board. The Council again calls, as it stated in last year's funding recommendation, for a cost and management review of PATH, and in those areas that have not yet done so, a clear shift in the project management to a task and time accounting process. The Council is in the process of developing, with the managers and Bonneville, an approach to multi-year review and funding. The Council hopes to begin review in 1999 of aggregated projects for the purpose of a multi-year recommendation. The Council has not yet decided which projects and programs to work with first, and precisely how to group the projects, but the Council will consider the recommendations of the Scientific Panel in deciding which programs to focus on.

V-C.2.1 The ISRP recommends that the individual project proposals that comprise parts of a single large supplementation project be incorporated under a single umbrella proposal and considered for a multi-year funding track. This recommendation assumes that the comprehensive review will recommend continuation of supplementation programs in the basin.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issue No. 18a. The Council is in the process of developing, with the managers and Bonneville, an approach to multi-year review and funding. The Council hopes to begin review in 1999 of aggregated projects for the purpose of a multi-year recommendation. The Council has not yet decided which projects and programs to focus on first; the Council will consider the recommendations of the Panel in making this decision. The Council recognizes that a number of the supplementation initiatives in the Council's Program are broken up into a series of separate contracts that make it difficult to understand or review the whole. Thus the Council will work with the project sponsors to group these contracts into their umbrella projects in time for next year's scientific review, whatever the progress on a multi-year review process.

V-C.8.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council require requests for staff funding be tied to a specific project proposal(s). The FTEs should be justified, their work described and the costs, and results tied to the objectives of a functional project.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 12d. The Council recommended that Bonneville begin to address this concern as part of the process of addressing other project concerns in the statements of work at contracting (see Issue No. 1 of the policy issue document). This is also an issue that can be addressed as part of the work recommended to group projects for umbrella review (see above and Issue No. 18a).

V-D.2.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council adopt a multi-year funding process for selected projects.

2. Programmatic Issues

V-B.2.b.2 The ISRP recommends that the Council place more emphasis on protection and ways to enhance habitat of the naturally reproducing salmon populations in the mainstem of the Columbia River.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 13. The Council agrees on the need for the Council and region to place more emphasis on protection and enhancement of mainstem habitat. The Council concluded that because the scoping studies on mainstem habitat and population structure are just getting underway, which are intended to provide guidance on how and where to place that emphasis, this was not an appropriate time to initiate new work. The program framework development process should also shed light on what is the appropriate approach to protecting and enhancing mainstem habitat. Outside of the Fiscal Year 1999 funding recommendation, the Council is working with others to address concerns raised by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board about the effects of power peaking on mainstem habitat in the Hanford Reach area, and has asked its staff to investigate a similar concern about the effects of operations on fall chinook redds below Bonneville Dam.

V-C.1.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council urge CBFWA to include in its Annual Implementation Work Plan a report of past accomplishments at the watershed and subregional/subbasin levels. The accomplishments should be reported in terms of FWP goals.

V-C.1.2 The ISRP recommends that the Council urge CBFWA to include in its Annual Implementation Work Plan a report that demonstrates it is using the information collected to improve program implementation (adaptive management) at the watershed and subregion/subbasin level. This report should include a description of the specific improvements in the program that resulted from information obtained through the program in previous years.

V-C.1.3 The ISRP recommends that the Council or Council staff communicate to project managers that continuation proposals will not be funded unless there is a technical summarization of past year's results sufficient for peer review.

Response: The Council responded to these recommendations in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue Nos. 1a and 18b. The Council, CBFWA and Bonneville are working to revise the project information form to make sure that information on results will be in project proposals. The Council will urge CBFWA to include in future draft work plans the recommended information on accomplishments and adaptive management.

V-C.3.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council set a deadline of 2 to 3 years after which no habitat projects will be funded unless they are preceded by and consistent with a watershed assessment, and the relationship of the project to that assessment clearly stated. Prior to that deadline, the Council should fund only those proposed projects that address the questions and concerns listed in Section V-C.3 Habitat Restoration.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 5. The Council recommended that Bonneville and the project sponsors be able to address the questions and concerns noted by the Scientific Panel in the statements of work at contracting for Fiscal Year 1999. For the future, the Council followed the Panel recommendation by indicating that within a couple of years the Council will not recommend funding for watershed projects without a demonstrated link to a watershed assessment, recognizing that there is work to complete in the interim, especially in three areas -- defining what is meant by a watershed assessment; making clear where we already have adequate watershed assessments; and where we do not have adequate watershed assessments, providing at least a share of the funding needed to develop those assessments.

V-C.4.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council explicitly encourage innovative projects by earmarking a small percentage of its budget each year as seed money.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 14. The Council recommended that beginning in Fiscal Year 2000, that CBFWA and Bonneville reserve a small amount of the direct program budget, not more than $2 million, as seed money for scoping grants to investigate promising new ideas, under the terms discussed in the policy document.

V-C.5.1 The ISRP recommends that the Wildlife Program include an explicit scientific research component. Innovative monitoring and research proposals could be encouraged through this part of the Program.

V-C.5.2 The ISRP recommends that additional scientific criteria be added to those currently used to prioritize proposals for wildlife mitigation projects.

V-C.5.3 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.

V-C.5.4 The ISRP recommends that the wildlife and fish habitat protection programs be better integrated and that projects be evaluated on criteria that favor those projects with documented benefits to both terrestrial and aquatic species.

Response: The Council responded to these recommendations in the discussion of the general policy issues, in Issue No. 15.

V-C.6.1 The ISRP recommends that the Council continue the practice of developing RFPs [Requests for Proposals] targeted to specific problems. This should become an annual procedure. We further recommend that requests for proposals to conduct the work or research be widely distributed to individuals, companies, and government agencies.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issue No. 18c (and see also Issue No. 14). The Council followed the Scientific panel's recommendation by recommending a shift from an open solicitation of new projects to an approach aimed at developing RFPs targeted to specific problems related to Program implementation.

V-C.7.1 The ISRP recommends that Council systematically evaluate budgets among projects for consistency and reasonableness.

Response: The Council responded to this recommendation in the discussion of the general policy issues, as part of Issue Nos. 1c and 12c.

3. Changes in Project Priority

V-B.2.b.3 The ISRP recommends that Project Nos.: 9105100, Monitoring and Evaluation Statistical Support; 9047, Use Unsteady Flow to Aid Mainstem Passage of Juvenile Salmonids; and 9079, Inventory Resident Fish Populations in the Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day Reservoirs, be funded in FY 99.

V-B.2.e.1.1 The ISRP recommends that Project No. 9153 (Preserve Cryogenically the Gametes of selected Mid-Columbia Salmonid Stocks) be funded in FY 99.

V-B.2.e.4.1 The ISRP recommends that Project Nos. 9016 (Research/Evaluate Restoration of Northeast Oregon Streams and Develop Management Guidelines) and 9141 (Strategies For Riparian Recovery: Plant Succession & Salmon) be funded in FY 99.

V-B.2.e.5.b.1 The ISRP recommends that Project No. 9159 (Rock Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project) be funded in FY 99.

V-B.2.f.1 The ISRP recommends that Project Nos. 9086 (Coordinate Assessment and Prioritization of Key Habitats in Methow Basin) and 9050 (Remove 23 Migrational Barriers and Restore Riparian Vegetation on Chumstick Creek) be funded in FY 99.

Response: The Council responded to these recommendations in the discussion of the general policy issues, as Issue No. 2. As explained in that document, the Council did not adopt the Scientific panel's recommendation with regard to these nine projects. Instead, the Council noted that it will work with the Panel over the coming year to provide guidance as to what needs to be part of a Panel recommendation for priority work. The Council also recommends to the fish and wildlife managers that in the process of developing the draft workplan for Fiscal Year 2000, CBFWA should give careful consideration to recommending funding for these nine projects and to the Program areas that these projects represent, and if CBFWA decides not to recommend funding for these projects, it should explain in writing why not.

^ top