Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Implementation Work Plan funding recommendation: Draft 4 of the "rolling memorandum"

September 9, 1999

MEMORANDUM

TO: Council Members, participants and others interested in the direct program project review process

FROM: Fish and Wildlife staff

This is the FOURTH edition of the Council's FY 2000 ?rolling? issue memorandum for the direct program project review process. At the Council's meeting in Helena in August, the staff presented an outline proposal for the approach that the Council might take to resolve the Fiscal Year 2000 funding issues and begin a transition to a new project review process -- one tied to the Multi-Species Framework analysis and expected Program amendment. The Council discussed the proposal and directed staff to further develop the approach. Since the Helena meeting, the staff has continued to develop the proposal taking into account Council direction, comments presented to the Council at those meeting, and comments and suggestions that have been provided to staff in various meetings and discussions with interested parties.

The revised proposal is attached, and it contains two parts. Part I of the memo has been titled ?The Desired End State? in the previous versions of this memo. As is discussed in the body of this memo, this section provides a proposal to generate discussion in the region as to how the program and project review process may be modified in the coming years. Part II of this memo deals specifically with the Fiscal Year 2000 project selection process, and sets forth the procedure that the Council will use to make its funding recommendations to Bonneville.

While prior versions of the rolling memo contained outlines of both Part I and Part II, those versions contained little explanatory text as to the ideas that were the foundation of the framework. This caused some confusion and concern, especially with regard to the ?Desired End State? portion of the memo. One primary objective of this version is to more fully explain the concepts in Part I, and to better explain the process that the Council will employ in making recommendation on Fiscal Year 2000 projects in Part II. While each of these sections can be viewed, and could have been presented here, as separate and independent documents, at least for this version of the rolling memo they have been presented jointly to provide context.

PART I -- The ?Desired End State?

This Part I of the rolling memo is a proposal to the Region on how the future Program and project review and selection process may be restructured in the next few years. It is important to note that this is a proposal, and it should not be interpreted as the Council's presupposing the outcome of the statutory Program amendment process. However, and discussed below, many of the core elements within the Desired End State seem to enjoy a broad consensus, and with that being the case, the Council believes that it is appropriate to start to build upon that consensus, and collaborate on how the Program and project review and selection may ultimately be shaped.

Prior versions of the rolling memo have contained an outline form of the ?Desired End State? without much explanatory narrative. In addition, the Desired End State has been paired with the outline of the process that the Council will use for making FY 2000 funding recommendations. There has been concern expressed by CBFWA and others about this format. Therefore, before going on to provide a more full explanation of the ideas underlying the Desired End State, the reasons for the two part rolling memo is discussed below.

A. Reasons for a Two-Part Draft Proposal

This year the rolling memo has consisted of two major sections. The first is titled the ?Desired End State?, and is related to issues beyond FY 2000. The second part is titled the ?Transition Plan for FY 2000?, and sets forth the process by which the Council proposes to implement section 4(h)(10) of the Act for fiscal year 2000. This year's memo has primarily been a ?bulletized? outline and decision-making framework. In previous years, the ?rolling memo? focused almost exclusively on issues related to the project selection and recommendation process of 4(h)(10) for the particular fiscal year, and dealt with those issues in a detailed narrative format. The Council is aware of the fact that the change in format for this year's rolling memo has generated some speculation, and is concerned that the reasons underlying the structure of the memo have not been communicated as effectively as needed. This version of the memo contains a discussion of why this year's unique circumstances make it appropriate to structure the memo in a way that the FY 2000 funding process can be viewed against the backdrop of a proposal for larger changes in Program structure and implementation in the coming years.

B. A Program in Transition

Two of the primary statutory responsibilities of the Council converge this year in an unprecedented way. First, a major task at hand for the Council and the Region is a Fish and Wildlife Program amendment process. The Council intends to initiate the rulemaking prior to the end of 1999. As previously indicated, the Council will seek to adopt a unifying framework for that Program. The state of the science and the current efforts of the fish and wildlife managers indicate that a strong subbasin planning element is likely to be a major component of that Program framework. The second statutory task at hand for the Council is to make funding recommendations to Bonneville this fall for projects proposed for FY 2000. The Council must recommend to Bonneville which existing projects implementing the currently adopted Program should continue to be funded, and also, which proposed new projects seeking to begin implementing the currently adopted Program should be started in the coming year. However, given that the Program will be amended prior to the end of FY 2000, these new and existing projects, designed to implement the currently adopted Program, will likely outlive that Program.

There is a need to harmonize these statutory duties this year -- on the one hand, the Act directs the Council to advise Bonneville to fund projects that are consistent with, and implement the Program in a cost-effective manner over the next year. On the other hand, the Council is considering a schedule that would lead to adopting major amendments to the Program within the next 8 to 10 months that may dramatically change its organization and content. In such a case, there is a real risk that projects proposed for funding in FY 2000 designed to be consistent with the existing Program, will outlive that Program, and not be consistent with the Program that will be adopted and in place in the middle of both calendar and fiscal year 2000. The Council believes that it would be imprudent, and perhaps even violative of the Act's cost-effectiveness provisions, to make FY 2000 funding recommendations without consideration of the fact those recommendations will outlive the term of the existing Program.

The Council believes that the Region is truly confronted with a critical transition period in FY 2000. It is necessary to make funding decisions for FY 2000 projects, while at the same time, minimizing the risk that projects approved for funding will become orphans when a new Program is adopted next year. Orphaned projects translate into limited ratepayer funds spent unwisely, and expectations of project implementers dashed. This result does not benefit fish and wildlife, ratepayers, project implementers, or the credibility of the Program as a focused, cost-effective plan for funding fish and wildlife restoration and mitigation. Further, the term of the current Bonneville funding MOA is nearing an end. If the Region is to expect continued support for funding the Program, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the Program is a focused and effective plan. The Council and the Region cannot afford to waste any time in developing that type of Program.

C. What is the ?Desired End State??

As has been stressed in its recent committee and Council meetings, the ?Desired End State? is a proposal to the Region. It does not have what one may call an independent ?regulatory effect?, and it is not a final decision on how the Program will be amended. When it comes to Program amendment, the Council will fully utilize the applicable statutory procedures. Further, the proposal is not intended to define or limit the roles and authorities of fish and wildlife managers, CBFWA, Bonneville, or others that participate in Program development and implementation. Rather, the ?Desired End State? is a look beyond the life of the existing Program, and an attempt to put forth for the Region some ideas and proposals for how the next Program and project selection process may be organized and implemented in a manner that will secure support within and outside of the Region

This ?Desired End State? proposal is being informed by many elements. They include various scientific reviews conducted over the last several years, the Multi - Species Framework Process, ISRP reports, discussions with stakeholders and agencies and tribes, and an apparent regional consensus that fish and wildlife restoration planning and mitigation is best focused at the subbasin scale. The proposal will undoubtedly evolve and mature as the Region engages on this topic and through the rulemaking process.

D. The Desired End State

The Independent Scientific Review Panel has strongly indicated that one of the highest priorities is completion of subbasin assessments and subbasin plans. The Council has also already indicated that a major restructuring of its Fish and Wildlife Program is needed, and that it intends to adopt a unifying ?framework? for that program, which will likely include a subbasin planning element.

The Council recognizes that other entities and processes also have a need for, and interest in, such planning, as well as responsibilities to meet their respective obligations, statutory or otherwise. The goal is to harmonize these processes around the task of subbasin planning and develop a basis for ecologically sound decision-making.

Here, for discussion purposes, is an attempt by Council staff to outline where the Council's Fish and Wildlife program may be within the next two years. The purpose of this is to outline what the Council will have accomplished or be engaged in, not to fully delineate the roles of others working with the Council on these efforts.

1. The Council has adopted a framework and a new program

Based on a province-level scale;
Defined goals and strategies;
Defined principles for artificial production (through Artificial Production Review);
Explicit criteria described for subbasin plans;
A comprehensive, regional monitoring and evaluation program is in place;
Describes procedures and standards for project review and funding recommendation, including budget allocations;
Developed consistent with requirements of Power Act;
Program fulfills ESA requirements where applicable;

In developing a major Program amendment that includes a scientifically based organizing framework, the Council seeks to meet the requirements of the Act mandating sound biologically based objectives. This organizing framework is also intended to be responsive to criticisms expressed by the Return to the River report, various scientific reviews (including three ISRP reports), and the 9th Circuit opinion in NRIC et al. v. NPPC. Summed up, a major criticism of the Program by these bodies and others, is that the existing Program is a collection of various fish and wildlife measures or desired activities, rather than a discreet fish and wildlife restoration and mitigation plan designed around biologically based goals and objectives. In addition, in order to meet the requirements of the Act, and also to secure and sustain the support for funding the next Program within the Region and without (it should be remembered that the current funding MOA expires soon) it will be necessary to show that it is a cost-effective plan focused on results measured in terms of fish and wildlife benefits.

The success of the next Program depends upon a decisive response to the criticisms of the current and prior Programs. The Council suggests that making the above elements a foundation of a new Program would provide that response. The Council is hopeful that the current participation and assistance provided by the Region in processes such as the Artificial Production Review and the Multi-Species Framework will translate into a consensus during the Program amendment process that these processes may be primary building blocks around which the next Program is organized.

2. Subbasin assessments/plans are complete or in progress

Reconnaissance-level assessment of existing and historical conditions completed for each subbasin;
12-year plans developed for each subbasin;
Each subbasin plan includes production and habitat strategies and proposed actions, tied to mainstem and estuary improvements where relevant;
A three-year rolling ISRP review will provide peer review of activities in each province and subbasins within the province;
Council sets guidelines for participation in subbasin planning and implementation for purposes of Fish and Wildlife Program and Bonneville funding. Plans will be evaluated for consistency with systemwide and province-level goals, objectives, policies and strategies adopted into an amended Program;
Collaboration with fish and wildlife managers in designing subbasin planning effort is important to making that effort successful;
Considers and integrates where possible other activities, purposes and obligations outside the Council's Program;
Recognizes and respects trust and treaty rights and obligations; also recognizes and respects state and federal law;
Where possible, the Council adopts into the Program a subbasin plan developed according to these principles.

If there is a consensus to be found in the Basin at this time, it is in the belief that fish and wildlife planning and restoration activities should be organized around a strong subbasin planning effort. This regional consensus and the ongoing Framework process lead the Council to believe that subbasin plans will be an important component of the biologically based framework and objectives of the amended Program. While much has been done in the way of subbasin planning, more work is still needed. The lack of an apparent, discreet subbasin plan or coordinated restoration strategy in several watersheds or subbasins was the basis of many of the ISRP's findings this year that projects proposed for funding did not pass the scientific review criteria of the Act or meet conditions of the Program.

Who actually does the subbasin planning is a topic of interest. First, while it is probable that the Council will assist in the development of subbasin planning standards and adopt them during the Program rulemaking, it is clearly not the Council's role to actually develop subbasin plans. Similarly, while the ISRP may assist in providing advice on subbasin planning standards, and perhaps review plans once they are completed, it is not the role of the ISRP to actually develop subbasin plans. Subbasin plans must be developed at the local level. The fish and wildlife managers in the subbasins will be very central figures in actually developing subbasin plans. In fact, a subbasin plan developed without significant involvement and contribution from the fish and wildlife managers in any particular subbasin would not meet standards in section 4(h)(6) of the Act for being adopted as part of the Program. The work on subbasin plans captured in the August 20, 1999 CBFWA DAIWP demonstrates the considerable work and expertise of the managers in this endeavor, and the information therein will be helpful foundation material for a system-wide subbasin planning initiative. The Council concurs with CBFWA's recognition that there needs to be additional work in subbasin planning, that existing plans may need to be improved, and that this initiative should be pursued with at least the involvement of the managers, Council, Bonneville, and independent science assistance.

While the role of the managers in developing these plans is evident, it should be equally evident that a subbasin plan should seek to include the input of land management agencies, local watershed groups, and others to ensure that the plans enjoy the widest support. This is so not only for the obvious reason that the input of these participants would offer a more comprehensive perspective, but also because fish and wildlife managers often have little or no way to influence land use or other activities likely to have an effect on fish and wildlife and their habitats.

While subbasin plans will be the guiding blueprint for activities at that geographic scale, it is not enough to simply develop and adopt them into the Program without some unifying standards designed to make their collective implementation a systemwide restoration and mitigation plan. The Act mandates that the Program treat the Columbia Basin as a whole. Therefore, and as is being discussed in the Multi-Species Framework Process, there must be a vertically graduated organizing framework moving from 'systemwide? goals and standards, to ?province level? goals and standards, and finally to subbasin level goals and standards. Under such a framework, the goals and standards of each level ?nest together?, and must be consistent with the higher order goals and standards. The Council, with the input of the Region, will seek to establish systemwide and province level goals and objectives in the upcoming Program rulemaking.

A final point to be made here is that the Council takes seriously the Act's specific mandate regarding consistency with the legal rights of Indian tribes and others. Congress took pains in crafting the Act's provisions to ensure that these rights be recognized and protected. The status of many of the Basin's tribes as dominant landholders and key fish and wildlife managers will make them influential participants in subbasin planning. This key status should be reflected in the policies and objectives of the subbasin plans that they help develop. In addition, the recommendations of Indian tribes and state and federal fish and wildlife managers are afforded deference in the Program amendment process. The result is that the Region's Indian tribes will be uniquely positioned to contribute substantially to both the ?top down? systemwide and province level goals, and the ?bottom up? subbasin goals and standards.

3. Project selection

Based on rolling, province-level visits and in-depth peer reviews, not an annual process;
Projects need to be fulfilling subbasin plans for approval for funding;
Reviews may identify where new projects are needed and incorporate ideas for projects from interested parties;
When a new proposal is being started, selection of a project implementer may be based on response to Request for Proposals (RFP) or other similar method;
Multi-year approval with defined project termination dates where appropriate;
Supplementary process for consideration of emergency needs and similar unanticipated needs;
Annual consideration of programmatic or basin-wide issues where necessary.
The project will provide for annual reporting on both biologic results and fiscal management.

The Council and the Region has two full years of experience in implementing the process mandated by the 1996 amendment to the Act. The Council believes that this review and selection process has brought, and will continue to bring, additional credibility to the Program and its implementation. However, the Council believes that portions of this process can be improved upon.

First, the Council believes that it may be neither appropriate nor desirable, to have an annual project solicitation and recommendation process that essentially treats the Program as if it were subject to complete revision each year. That is, under the current project selection format each and every year a general proposal solicitation goes out to the Region as if all of the funds available within the direct fund category are available for funding new projects, or complete reallocation among existing multi-year projects. Under this fiction, hundreds of proposed projects are received by Bonneville, their sum total exceeding the funds available for that fiscal year by several times. This format has Bonneville, CBFWA, the ISRP and the Council all sorting through far more project proposals than can possibly be funded. The fact of the matter is that a significant portion of the funds in any fiscal year are going to be dedicated to existing projects and programs that have been approved in previous years, and are in various stages of development or implementation. This unlimited solicitation procedure raises expectations about opportunities for funding new projects, and it detracts from having a focused and discreet fish and wildlife Program with a measure of longevity and stability. As discussed above, the Council is proposing that future solicitations be geared towards discreet needs identified in the subbasin planning and review processes.

A second proposed change in the project selection process relates to the use of the ISRP. In the past three years, the ISRP reviewed proposal forms, rather than the actual projects within their subbasin or provincial context. The Council suggests that this may not be the model that best serves the goals of the Act and the needs of those that implement the Program. There seems to be a desire shared by the Council, the ISRP, and the managers to increase the interaction between the project proponents and the ISRP, and to increase the level of review of actual projects and programs within their subbasin context. Again, and linking the proposed approach to subbasin plans, the Council believes that the ISRP review should include on-site reviews of projects being proposed to implement subbasin plans. In future years, in those cases where subbasin plans have been adopted into the Program (as discussed in 2. above), the ISRP's review may largely focus on the consistency of the project's proposed in that review cycle with the adopted subbasin plan.

On this second point, it bears repeating that the Council is not proposing that the ISRP go into subbasins or provinces and actually develop or define the subbasin plans. Subbasin planning involves policy and legal decisions that are not within the ISRP's expertise or authority. While it is likely that ISRP may be called upon to review subbasin plans to determine if they are premised upon sound scientific principles, they should not revisit policy and legal decisions incorporated into the plans.

The last major shift envisioned within this section is a strong move to multi-year funding. After the ISRP reviews a collection of subbasin plans within a province, identifies with the appropriate entities new needs (if any), and finds the projects proposed to be consistent with an approved subbasin plan, the projects proposed will likely be funded for several years (the thinking is currently about three years), without the need for additional ISRP review until the funding cycle is due to expire.

Summed up, the Council believes that in-depth, on the ground scientific review of actual projects implementing approved subbasin plans that are consistent with systemwide and province level goals and standards, coupled with multi-year funding, will add certainty and stability at both the project and overall Program level. The usefulness and quality of the scientific review should be increased. These objectives, if realized, will serve the collective need to prove that the Program is credible and cost-effective.

4. Monitoring and evaluation

Regional monitoring and evaluation plan in place;
Coordinated data specifications, collection, management, and access;
Regular analysis.
Annual reporting and analysis of results.

The Program's success cannot be measured and demonstrated without an adequate monitoring and evaluation framework. It is anticipated that a more regimented Program framework will facilitate the design of a more robust and effective monitoring and evaluation Program. The Council firmly believes that this should be a major objective for the next Program. In addition, there is a need to better coordinate with the numerous data collection and management activities and institutions in the Basin. There is a need to better coordinate and normalize monitoring and evaluation activities whether they occur as part of the Program or otherwise.

5. Council role

Adopts policies and objectives for Program;
In collaboration with fish and wildlife managers, Bonneville and others, develops priorities and budgets for activities and among subbasins;
Coordinates technology and information transfer and management;
Provides for resources and technical analysis to assist subbasin planning effort;
Receives and responds to M&E;
Oversight and criteria for fiscal/budget management.

The bullets above are conceptual level elements of what the Council believes its role may be in coming years. These elements are not so much a proposal, (and certainly not a final decision) as an introspective look at what the institution may be doing in the following years if the Region chooses to adopt the type of new Program that is discussed above.

First, absent amendment to the Act, the statutory fish and wildlife-planning role of the Council will remain. That is, the Council ?adopts? Program elements after conducting the statutory amendment process established by the Act. Second, the Council will have a statutory duty to make recommendations for funding activities that implement the Program, and it recognizes that this is done with other appropriate entities, including Bonneville and the project sponsors. Similarly, the Council will need to be responsive to the results of monitoring and evaluation efforts in both adopting changes to the Program, and in making funding recommendations. The Council also expects to be a technical and facilitation resource in several respects. These are not new roles for the Council -- they are linked to responsibilities imposed by the Act, and they are roles that time and experience has demonstrated that the Council will fill.

What the above bullets are not is an attempt to define the roles of others -- Bonneville, fish and wildlife managers, or the public at large. It will be up to those entities to define their roles in the context of a new Program. This is not to say that the Council does not recognize that some of the vision outlined above will not affect some change. For example, a change in the general annual solicitation process to a more focused solicitation with multi-year funding may prompt the fish and wildlife managers to choose to reshape how they utilize CBFWA. Again, a change in these roles is not something that the Council can or would seek to unilaterally impose. The challenge for the Council, fish and wildlife managers, Bonneville, and others, is to avoid ?turf protecting?, and focus on collectively developing a vision and plan for developing an effective, credible, and stable fish and wildlife Program in the very near term. Once that is accomplished the Council and others should shape their roles within existing legal parameters to best implement that plan as set out in a new Program.

E. Near Term Modifications to the Project Selection and Review Process

The Region may or may not ultimately decide that the ?Desired End State? as described above provides for the type of Program format and project review and selection process desired. Notwithstanding the uncertainty about what a future Program may look like, the Council, the ISRP, and the fish and wildlife managers have all expressed a desire to change the project review process to a model that provides a more useful, quality independent review. Therefore, the Council is proposing to modify the review model as described below in response to requests from the managers, the ISRP, and to better meet its own needs. The goal in charting a course for a new review model is to find a process that will work well whether or not the Desired End State is reflected in the amended Program. Simply stated, the following project review and selection model is not dependant upon the Region's decision to adopt the Desired End State, but it will work well if that does come to pass. The Council intends to change the project review model along the lines described below, and is discussing this with CBFWA representatives and others.

1. Start ISRP reviews by province

The Council believes that the change in the way that the science review is conducted should be started expeditiously. This is important because of the expected timing of the Program amendment process, and the need to begin the development and ultimate institutionalization of subbasin plans and multi-year funding of them. While the substantive review standards for the ISRP were established, the Act's 1996 amendment did not prescribe in detail the process by which the ISRP must conduct its review. This flexibility provides an opportunity to modify the review, and shift into a model more like that discussed above and outlined here:

ISRP would conduct an intensive review of each ecological province (or other sub-regional unit) and its subbasins (3 provinces first year, 3 second year, 3 third year), with rolling review thereafter;
Existing documents, proposals, and plans would be components of the review until formal plan adopted;
Process would be iterative, with site visits and other contacts with subbasin participants;
Review would include ?reimbursable? activities as well as ?direct program? activities;
ISRP reviews will be coordinated with the artificial production evaluations called for in the Artificial Production Review;
Basin-level review of certain topics, e.g. captive propagation and supplementation;
Similar rolling review would be established for system-wide activities, including system-wide research, data management, and monitoring and evaluation activities;
ISRP would also provide each year a programmatic review, summarizing major issues and achievements

One of the first tasks in restructuring this review process is to fix a schedule for the rolling reviews. There are several approaches that could be taken. For example, one choice may be to start with a province that includes one or more subbasins that the ISRP advised lacks a workable subbasin plan that coordinates and relates the projects proposed for funding. This ?pick the hot-spots? approach has the benefit of quickly getting to those areas where it seems the most work must be done. On the other hand, this is a new review process, and a learning curve and adjustment period should be expected. It may not be the best choice to be collectively climbing that learning curve during the review of the most challenging basins. The second obvious alternative is to do the opposite -- select a province that contains one or more well-developed subbasin plans. The idea here of course is to streamline this new review model without simultaneously tackling the most difficult issues in the Basin. A third alternative may be to do a ?trial run? or prototype subbasin review that does not have any funding or decision-making implications associated with it. This approach would permit us to learn how best to implement this new review model without putting a particular province or subbasin's project funding requests in issue as we learn. The obvious downside is that valuable review time would be lost. The Council staff intends to present a straw proposal to the Council on the sequencing question. The ISRP will provide guidance on the straw proposal, and the Council will approve a proposal on September 21.

Beyond sequencing is the question of substance-- what will a review entail? The following are some conceptual elements suggested by Council staff:

1) A concrete, three-year schedule with specific time periods for reviewing each province.
2) Broad public notice about the reviews (which will include both direct program and reimbursable project categories) and how to participate in them.
3) Ongoing projects submit project summaries that include plans for next three years, descriptions of results to date, and briefings on background documents. Ongoing projects will also submit all relevant planning, research, and background documents. Bonneville submits accounting, reports, and other documentation related to ongoing projects. New projects submit proposals. All projects must be tied to a subbasin umbrella proposal and ultimately to an approved subbasin plan.
4) ISRP review of documents and subbasin/province visits with project sponsors, managers and others. In addition, the ISRP may conduct project specific visits on an ad hoc basis.
5) ISRP produces a draft report, including specific questions, following its review and provides it to project sponsors for comments, reactions and revisions.
6) Managers and project sponsors respond the draft report.
7) ISRP issues final report to Council.
8) Council makes written, three-year recommendations to Bonneville.

Finally, the staff suggests that the following assumptions should be applied as this new review model is considered:

1) The reviews include reimbursable projects.
2) Mainstem projects will fit with other province level reviews.
3) Systemwide projects will make up their own province.
4) EDT analysis from the Framework, the Council's amended Fish and Wildlife Program, subbasin plans produced as a result of this process, and the Artificial Production Review will be incorporated as they become available.
5) The Artificial Production Review will provide performance standards to evaluate artificial production projects.

2. Cascading funding decisions based on the more thorough ISRP reviews

In collaboration with fish and wildlife managers, Bonneville and others, Council would prepare annual budgets, with placeholders for new activities;
Council would make funding recommendation decisions on a province basis, and recommend funding for new projects within a province in conjunction with the review of that province;
Council would make written, three-year recommendations to BPA for activities within each province.

The Council's intention to revise the annual fish and wildlife project selection process to reflect province planning will require a transition in the procedures to allocate Bonneville's fish and wildlife budget. The challenge is to devise a funding process in the initial years of province planning that continues to fund projects selected under the existing system, while also ensuring that sufficient resources will be available to support project needs that will arise out of the new annual province reviews.

The transition period will begin with FY 2001 and extend through FY 2003. This coincides with the ISRP's schedule of reviewing three of the nine geographic provinces every year. Beginning with the FY 2004 project selection process, each of the nine provinces will have been reviewed once and the transition will be complete. The FY 2000 process, in which we are involved currently, will not require significant revisions in funding procedures because the ISRP's review of the first three provinces will not be finished until later in the year. The three initial province reviews will, however, be available for FY 2001.

The first step in the transition to a new funding process is to ascertain a baseline budget for the program for FY 2000 and following years. The baseline budget is analogous to the concept of the fish and wildlife program's annual fixed costs. These are ?required? costs that include such activities as operations and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of ongoing programs, and capital construction activities that are likely to be maintained. While the baseline budget may grow in future years, it is not expected to decrease.

The baseline budget will always be less than the total annual amount Bonneville has available to allocate to the direct program (currently $127 million). This is because in addition to the baseline costs, there are projects selected every year that are short-term in nature. They have a well-defined beginning and end, have no ongoing funding components, and, therefore, will not increase the baseline budget.

Although the transition period for province-based funding will not begin until FY 2001, it is prudent to calculate the baseline budget for FY 2000. The FY 2000 direct program budget will be comprised of the baseline budget covering all nine provinces plus a currently undefined contingency fund for unforeseen needs. The total of the two will be $127 million.

In FY 2001, the first three province reviews will be completed, and the funding transition will commence. The direct program budget will consist of an updated baseline covering all nine provinces and the new needs identified in the reviews of provinces 1 through 3, and a contingency fund for other unforeseen needs.

Similarly, the FY 2002 budget will contain a new baseline budget covering all the provinces and the new needs identified in the reviews of provinces 4 through 6, and a contingency fund for the unforeseen needs.

In FY 2003, the final year of transition, the budget will be made up of a new baseline budget for all nine provinces and the newly identified needs in provinces 7 through 9, and a contingency fund for any unforeseen needs.

As mentioned earlier, the total annual amount available for Bonneville's direct program is $127 million through FY 2002. This is based on the federal agencies? memorandum of agreement that established Bonneville's annual fish and wildlife commitment. The MOA may be renegotiated before FY 2003. Therefore, it is possible that the amount available for that year may be either more or less than $127 million.

3. No general project solicitation for FY 2001; limited solicitation for innovative projects and identified needs

It makes little sense to begin a general project solicitation process this spring as the Council and Region are engaged in the heart of a major Program amendment process. Without an adopted Program to relate their proposals to, project proponents would be firing blind folded. However, there may be identified needs for specific work that could be solicited as follows:

Specific RFPs for innovative projects at the start of the year up to a total cost;
Possible specific RFPs for a very limited number of needs identified over the course of the year, including watershed assessment and subbasin planning;
The Council may require projects identified as ?fund for one year? by the ISRP to undergo additional review.

PART II Decision Making Format Process for Projects Proposed for FY 2000 Funding

This Part II of the rolling memo sets forth the process that will be used by the Council in making its recommendations to Bonneville for funding from the direct program new and existing project proposals.

A. General Discussion - Proposed New Projects

The Council believes that it must be judicious in making funding commitments to new initiatives for FY 2000 that are designed to implement the current Program, given that the Program is likely to receive a major overhaul within the next year. This is especially so given that the ISRP has advised the Council this year (and in previous years) that substantial work must be done in many areas, and in several project categories, before associated projects will possess the scientific rigor to meet the standards of the Act. In addition, the Act requires the Council to make a determination that the projects it proposes for funding this year ?employ cost effective measures to achieve Program objectives.? The Council does not believe that anything in the Act prevents it from taking into consideration in its funding recommendations that the ?Program objectives? are in a state of flux with the imminent rulemaking.

One approach may be to call a complete ?time out? on launching any new projects until the Region has developed the new Program. On the other hand, given the status of the resource, it seems undesirable to delay needed fish and wildlife initiatives, especially in cases where there is unanimity among the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes and the ISRP that the projects are scientifically sound, will benefit fish and wildlife, and have clear and measurable objectives. The risk that projects which enjoy this consensus will not be consistent with the objectives of the amended Program seem to be minimal. Therefore, the general approach that will be employed by the Council is to recommend funding new projects only when the ISRP and CBFWA reviews concurred that funding should be provided in FY 2000. The mechanics of the approach are discussed more fully below.

B. General Discussion- Proposed Funding of Existing Projects

In regards to existing projects or programs in place and implementing the current Program, it is likely that many of these will carry over into any amended Program. It is quite likely, however, that some of these existing projects may need to be modified or redirected in order to meet the scientific review criteria, and to increase the likelihood that they will continue to be consistent with a newly amended Program. The fact is, many existing projects will, by and large, continue as important portions of whatever Program is adopted next year. For example, it is very unlikely that programs such as the YKFP, or Hood River project will not be part of the next Program.

Therefore, the Council believes that it is reasonable and proper to treat proposals to fund existing projects differently than proposals to fund new projects in FY 2000. The Council believes that there is a balance that must be achieved that seeks to move solid fish and wildlife projects forward, while seeking to prevent the expenditure of Bonneville funds on projects that may ultimately not be consistent with the newly amended Program. The decision-making framework detailed in section B. below seeks to achieve that balance, and will be used by the Council in making its FY 2000 decisions.

There is one final note to be made before delving into the framework for how the Council intends to reach its final recommendations to Bonneville for projects proposed for funding. The Act makes the Council the final authority on which projects will be recommended to Bonneville for funding, not the ISRP. The Council understands that there are other factors outside of the province of the ISRP that go into the decision as to whether or not any particular project should be recommended for funding. These other factors include the Council's own consistency review, legal and policy considerations, economic implications and cost-effectiveness considerations. The Council has not and will not abandon its statutory duty to be the final decision-maker on which projects will be recommended for funding. The following process is designed to ensure that all considerations that go into a final funding recommendation are addressed. The Council understands the ISRP's recommendations and categories (?fund? ?delay? etc.) to be advice limited to scientific considerations. The Council will continue to address policy considerations along with the scientific. The Council will consider, but not give special weight to non-science based recommendations, if any, contained directly or inferentially in the ISRP report.

C. Treatment of Proposals by Category

1. Projects not recommended for funding by both CBFWA and the ISRP

The Council will make recommendations against funding these projects on September 21. Sponsors may resubmit their proposals during the appropriate province level review.
The Council will recommend that these new projects not be funded at this time because of scientific, policy, and cost-effectiveness considerations. More specifically, these new projects did not meet the scientific review standards, and also raise policy and cost-effectiveness problems in that they seek to implement a Program that will be amended within the term of the proposed project.
On August 20, 1999, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority submitted a revised Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan (DAIWP). The revised DAIWP contained, among other items, responses to both the ?programmatic? and project specific recommendations made by the ISRP on the April 16, 1999 version of the DAIWP that was submitted for its review. Some of those responses relate to proposed new projects that the Council will recommend not be funded in FY 2000. The Council's recommendation to not fund new projects that did not pass the initial ISRP review should not be interpreted as a rejection of the August 20th technical responses related to those new projects. Rather, as stated above in the general discussion, a Program amendment process is imminent, and consistency and cost-effectiveness requirements dictate a need to be conservative in starting new initiatives. Further, there simply does not appear that funding may be available for all proposed projects. Given comments submitted by Bonneville on its position regarding the funds available for FY 2000, the Council believes that it is unlikely that there will be funds for all projects proposed by CBFWA. These two policy based considerations call for a project selection process that seeks first to provide funding for new and existing projects that secured a strong concurrence of CBFWA and the ISRP on scientific standards, and second, for preserving the investments made in existing projects that are able to secure ISRP approval in the second review, or that demonstrate a compelling rationale for funding during the Council policy review.

2. Transition provisions for FY 2000 projects recommended by both CBFWA and the ISRP (158 projects)

The Council will make recommendations on these projects on September 21.
Existing and new projects funded until ISRP review of subbasin. In contracting these projects, Bonneville and project sponsors are to address comments made by the ISRP and document responses.
The practical effect of the change in the review process discussed above is to provide some of the projects within this group with a multi-year funding approval this fall. That is, if the ISRP's rolling review does not get to the province within which the project is located this coming year or next, it will be funded until the review and solicitation process for that area comes up in a future year.
The second point regarding direction to Bonneville and the sponsor relates to the Council's direction to have criticisms or questions raised by the ISRP, notwithstanding its general recommendation to fund the project, addressed within the contracting process. The Council will prepare general guidance to Bonneville on how best to ensure that ISRP concerns and issues raised by the Council are addressed. The draft guidance language will be presented to the Fish and Wildlife Committee on August 31 and approved by the Council on September 21.
There is an exception to the general recommendation to fund these projects: the Council needs to consider policy issues raised by some of these projects, especially issues of consistency with past years? Council funding recommendations. Where discrepancies exist between the concurring CBFWA/ISRP funding recommendations this year and past funding recommendations, the Council will have to decide whether to remain consistent with past policy recommendations or revise the policies:

(a) Law enforcement - funding requested for two projects, (9202400, 9202409 - CRITFC, NPT), approx. $814,000.

Issue: The ISRP has recommended that funding be provided for two law enforcement projects proposed for Bonneville funding this fiscal year. The Council must decide if it will: (1) continue to apply the standards developed and employed in the FY 98 and 99 process regarding the funding of law enforcement projects, or, (2) have the ISRP's recommendation to fund the projects guide its decision without further inquiry.

Past Council Treatment: In its FY 1998 recommendations the Council recommended that Bonneville funding of law enforcement projects be discontinued. This was in response to a request for funding from CBFWA for $4 million of these projects. Law enforcement activities have been funded as part of the Program since the early 1990's. The Council made the recommendation to discontinue funding for such projects on the basis that the law enforcement portion of the Program had expanded beyond its originally intended scope and duration. In addition, the Council was concerned that because law enforcement activities are of the nature traditionally funded by state and tribal governments, that Bonneville funding of such activities may simply be replacing traditional state and tribal funding for such activities. This would present an ?in lieu? issue under the Act. Notwithstanding the general recommendation to discontinue funding of these projects, after further deliberation, review of comments, and public discussion, the Council advised that it would consider ?proposals to fund specific law enforcement tasks that are tied to the core purposes of the Act, do not present an ?in lieu? issue, under the Act, and are associated with activities funded under the Council's program, such as protecting habitat investments.?

In its FY 99 recommendations, the Council reaffirmed the policy and approach for treatment of law enforcement projects that it established in the FY 98 process. In that year, four law enforcement projects were recommended (totaling about $1.7 million). However, these projects were not part of a consensus CBFWA recommendation because the managers were unable to agree upon criteria to apply to law enforcement projects In the end, the Council recommendation stated that if CBFWA were to ultimately present a funding recommendation for law enforcement activities, that it would review such a proposal, in consultation with the project sponsors and Bonneville, to determine if they are consistent with the standards established in the FY 98 process (highlighted in bold above).

Staff Recommendation: At the September 1 work session meeting, CBFWA representatives stated that CBFWA had taken no position on the two law enforcement proposals. The staff recommends that these two projects that received favorable ISRP review, be included in the group of projects that the ISRP for prioritization relative to the other projects recommended by the ISRP but not CBFWA as explained in section 7. below.

(b) gas supersaturation monitoring and evaluation - funding requested for three projects (9602100, 20143(formerly 9300802), 20157 - USGS, CRITFC, IDFG), approx. $202,000.

Issue: The ISRP recommended funding for two projects. A third, proposed by IDFG, was not submitted in time for ISRP review, which has also been the case in previous years. The issue for the Council is to accept the recommendations of the ISRP on the two projects it recommended without further inquiry, or to also require those proposals to be consistent with the gas research plan requested in FY98 and provided by CBFWA later that year. In addition the Council must decide if the project not reviewed by the ISRP should be subjected to independent review prior to making a funding recommendation.

Past Council Treatment: In reviewing projects totaling $2.5 million in FY 98, the ISRP questioned the level of attention and expenditure that was being made on evaluating the effects of dissolved gas when ?the physical causes and engineering solutions are known and the general biological detriment of high gas supersaturation were well proven.? In response, the Council recommended that funding for these projects be held in reserve pending the development of a coordinated research plan by the Dissolved Gas Team, associated funding recommendations, and review by the ISAB of the Corps? gas program. Ultimately it was agreed that the research plan would be developed through CBFWA. (The plan was developed and released in December 1998).
In FY 99 the Council deferred a funding recommendation on two proposed gas projects, but recommended that Bonneville hold reserve funds sufficient for the two proposed projects. The deferral was made to permit time for CBFWA to review the ISAB report on the Corps? gas program, and develop a research plan in consideration of that review and the Gas Team's proposed research plan. Again, that plan was released in December 1998.

Staff recommendation: 1)Project 9602100 has been substantially reduced from previous years. It is primarily external examination of juvenile migrants for external signs of gas bubble disease. The project is linked to the smolt monitoring program. This type of juvenile monitoring is required by Oregon and Washington water quality agencies as a condition to granting permits to dam operators to spill water for fish passage that results in exceedances of water quality standards for dissolved gas. The CBFWA research plan states that ?biological monitoring [of gas bubble disease] will continue as long as it is a necessary element of the dissolved gas waivers.? The staff recommends that this project be funded for one year, and reviewed in conjunction with the smolt monitoring program and other Programmatic M&E programs. 2) Project 20143, though possessing a new project number, is the continuation of an ongoing gas project. It is primarily monitoring adult salmonids for signs of gas bubble disease. As of April 1999, neither the state of Washington or Oregon requires adult monitoring as a condition of granting gas waivers for spill. The staff recommends that this project not be funded because it is no longer needed to secure gas waivers, which is the primary link the CBFWA gas plan requires of biological monitoring. 3)Project 20157 also carries a new number, but the project has existed since 1995. The project was not reviewed by the ISRP due to its untimely submission. The project monitors biological symptoms of gas bubble disease as a condition for a waiver from the Idaho DEQ for spill at Dworshak dam. This project is scheduled to undergo a five year evaluation by Idaho DEQ, IDFG, and NMFS, with a report expected in October of this year. Staff recommends that the proposal be submitted for ISRP review, and that the funding decision be delayed pending both that review, and the report and evaluation expected in October.

(c) predator control - funding recommended for two projects (1 N. Pikeminnow, 1 Tern) (9007700, 20095 - PSMFC, OSU/CRITFC), approx. $3.14 million.

Issue: 1) The Council requested a long-term management plan for Caspian tern predator control activities funded by Bonneville. A report on the management plan to the Council is expected on September 21. Is the proposed tern project consistent with that plan? 2) Regarding Pikeminnow, are the projects proposed consistent with that prior guidance to utilize those most cost-effective means of reducing these predators and not an expenditure on additional research oriented activities?

Past Council Treatment: On July 22, 1999, the Council sent a letter to Will Stelle, CBFWA, and the Corps requesting that they develop a management plan for Caspian tern predator control. That management plan is expected on September 21. In its FY 98 recommendations, the Council responded to an ISRP report criticizing the level of expenditures devoted to the Northern Pikeminnow control program by recommending funding for those portions of the proposed projects that utilized what experience had demonstrated as being the most cost effective methods for reducing these predators, and recommending that funding be discontinued for those methods that had not been as demonstrably effective. In addition, the Council noted that the project had been so successfully monitored and evaluated that the questions related to predator behavior, and the benefit obtained by reducing their numbers had been answered, and that additional efforts to evaluate such issues were unnecessary.

Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends that the Council evaluate the avian predation project after considering the report and presentation by USFWS, NMFS and the Corps on the long-term management plan on September 21. Second, regarding Northern Pikeminnow, staff has reviewed comments submitted by the sponsor in response to the ISRP report (Appendix B, p. 144, CBFWA August 20, 1999), stating that the proposal focuses on what has been shown as the most cost-effective reduction strategies. The Council staff is reviewing the sponsor comments in an attempt to determine if the funding allocations within the project satisfy past Council concerns.

(d) captive propagation Several new and existing projects.

Issue: 1)Has NMFS developed interim standards for use of captive brood strategies as previously requested, and if so, does the Council find them adequately responsive to the concerns that these projects are costly, the feasibility of the technology unproven; and 2) has NMFS developed a prioritization schedule for captive brood projects as previously requested?

Past Council Treatment: In its FY 98 and 99 recommendations, the Council expressed several categorical concerns with the captive broodstock projects being proposed for funding: (1) the projects are expensive, (2) they appear to be proliferating, (3) the feasibility of the technology had not been adequately reviewed, and, (4) an underlying question related to the question of whether these projects are primarily ?ESA projects?, or, projects that are consistent with and part of the Program funded by Bonneville. In the end, the Council recommended that existing captive broodstock programs be funded, but it called upon NMFS to work with the other anadromous fish managers to develop a set of interim standards for the application of captive broodstock technology. The Council advised that its continued funding support for the NMFS systemwide project was contingent before a set of acceptable standards being developed. The Council also stated that it would not recommend funding for any new captive broodstock projects absent an emergency, without those standards. The Council also stated its intention to require captive broodstock projects to follow the interim ?3-Step review process? for artificial production projects. The Council has also asked that NMFS prioritize captive broodstock projects, and provide that schedule.

In February of this year, NMFS submitted the interim standards report requested by the Council. The Region is using these interim standards as temporary guidance in the various fora in which captive propagation is being discussed. The standards were incorporated into the guidelines and performance standards developed in the preservation/conservation purpose of artificial production under the APR process, and are, therefore, consistent with the principles, policies, and purposes as described in the report and recommendations. The Council will submit this report to Congress later this fall.

Staff Recommendation: To date, the Council has not received a prioritization of likely target populations and intervention programs to form a basis for programmatic and budget planning. Therefore, funding levels for existing programs should be held at current levels pending that prioritization. In addition, if the prioritization is provided a review of these captive brood programs for consistency with APR report policies and standards must be conducted before additional funds are allocated to these programs or new programs.

(e) lamprey projects ? funding recommended for three projects (20019, 20065, 20121) (IDFG, USGS, USFWS) approx. $287,000.

Issue: The ISRP has recommended funding for three new lamprey projects in FY 00. The Council must decide if it will: (1) recommend to fund the projects as proposed by the ISRP, or (2) condition its recommendation on a finding that these new projects have been assessed and coordinated with the on-going lamprey umbrella project, demonstrating that there is a need for an expansion of the lamprey work in the basin.

Past Council Treatment: In its FY 99 recommendations the Council recommended that new lamprey research and evaluation projects recommended by CBFWA not be funded. The projects proposed that year did not appear to be connected or coordinated with the existing, on-going, coordinated lamprey umbrella project that was developed in response to a lamprey status review conducted in 1995 (project 9402600). That existing project, being implemented in phases, is supposed to provide information regarding lamprey status, and possibly identify restoration plans. It made little sense to the Council to recommend the start-up of new lamprey projects not linked to the existing umbrella project. Moreover, the Council was concerned that the existing project seemed to be out of sequence, seeking funds for implementation (phase III) prior to the planning and Council approval of the planning to be completed in phase II. The Council's recommendation stated that if project sponsors sought to initiate new lamprey research projects in the future, the project sponsors and CBFWA should assess the on-going effort and proposed new projects in a coordinated way and recommend whether there is a need for a more detailed project review and possibly an expansion of the lamprey effort in FY 2000. Moreover, and regarding the ongoing project and its implementation activities specifically, the Council recommended that no funds be expended until Council review and approval of the lamprey restoration plans to be produced during phase II of the project.

Staff Recommendation: First, the ongoing project (9402600) was rated as ?fund in part? by the ISRP, and is being reviewed again by the ISRP. The sponsor comments on the initial ISRP report and the lamprey appendix in the CBFWA DAIWP will be part of that review. It is anticipated that this second review will provide additional information to the Council on whether or not the ongoing project is properly sequenced (restoration planning and approval prior to implementation), whether the project's prior work has been adequately assessed, whether there is a demonstrated need to expand lamprey work at this time, and if the new lamprey projects proposed are adequately coordinated with the ongoing project. If the ISRP provides this information, and it is likely that it will, the Council will be able to assess whether or not its past concerns about expansion of lamprey work at this time have been addressed.

(f) CBFWA budget/coordination funding:

Past Council Treatment: In FY 99 the Council recommended that CBFWA and Bonneville develop a proposal establishing the purpose and rules for allocating money to reimburse agencies and tribes for staff time spent on regional coordination. The recommendation stated such a proposal needed to be developed and reviewed by the Council before it would decide if it would recommend that Bonneville directly fund coordination activities. The crux of the FY 99 request for coordination funding was the managers? desire to have some staff time spent on regional coordination activities directly funded by Bonneville, rather than as a part of individual project administration costs. The Council and CBFWA ultimately reached agreement on coordination funding for FY 99.

Issue and staff recommendation: The Council and CBFWA staffs will continue to meet to discuss and develop a mutually agreed upon plan of CBFWA activities and associated funding requirements for the coming fiscal year. The staff recommends that these items be funded at the current levels on an interim basis pending the collaborative resolution of the funding needs within the next two months.

(g) Lake Pend Oreille kokanee study

Issue and staff recommendation: The newest information in this matter is an ISAB issued on the Lake Pend Oreille studies dated August 30, 1999. The ISAB recommendation was:

1. Recommend against discontinuing the experiment with lake level regulation that is underway.

2. If the lake level experiment is to be expanded beyond the initial five years approved by the Council, a full description of the experiment should be required to be provided to the Council (for review by the ISRP prior to its implementation) of a rigorously designed experiment that includes changing lake elevations and observing the effects on kokanee abundance. Simply continuing passive monitoring observations for a period of years at the same level would not be productive use of resources (water, fish or personnel).

The staff suggests that the Council should review the ISAB report (4 pages). There is also a report that was produced by the Corps August 17, 1999 ?Analysis of the Kokanee Experiment at Lake Pend Oreille on Water Levels in the Cusick, Washington Area.? Finally, the IEAB is reviewing this matter, and will issue a report in the future. There is also a stakeholders meeting scheduled for September 14 in Spokane (airport Ramada), and there are some Council members that will attend that meeting. Staff recommends that the Council hold a decision on funding until it has had sufficient time to address the newly released reports and consider information received at the September 14 meeting.

(h) wildlife mitigation: four projects (20112, 20114, 20115, 20116) (Oregon Wildlife Coalition)

Issue: The ISRP has recommended that several new wildlife habitat acquisition and mitigation projects be funded for FY 2000. Bonneville has raised the issue in its comments that funding these projects raises crediting issues, and would seek to postpone these projects (and others in the future) until crediting issues are resolved.

Staff Recommendation. This recommendation contains several parts, and is intended to address both FY 2000 issues, as well as longer-term wildlife crediting issues. Recommendation Part 1. The Council should facilitate a resolution of the crediting methodology, mitigation accounting, and equitable allocation of credits, and any other crediting issues that surface with the wildlife managers, Bonneville, and others. The Council is advised that the wildlife managers will be forwarding to it a recommendation on crediting methodology. The Council will use this recommendation as a vehicle to begin the discussions on all of the crediting issues discussed here. Recommendation Part 2. Staff recommends that Bonneville fund all wildlife projects recommended by CBFWA in FY 98, FY99, and FY00 that have been approved by the Council and recommended to Bonneville. This includes projects 20112, 20114, 20115, and 20116 referenced in Bonneville's August 13, 1999 comments. Pending resolution of the crediting issues, the managers and Bonneville should assign the HU's achieved by their projects on an interim basis to the hydroprojects where credits are believed to be available: NE Oregon (NPT), Logan Valley (BPT), Ladd Marsh (ODFW), Denny Jones (BPT), Wenaha (ODFW), and FY 99 and FY 00 Yakama Riparian acquisitions (YIN) to the Lower Snake; and Irrigon (ODFW), Pine Creek (CTWSRO), Horn Butte (ODFW), Trout Creek (ODFW), and S. Fork Crooked River (ODFW) to John Day, The Dalles, Bonneville, and the Willamette projects. Recommendation Part 3. The Council is aware that Bonneville and project proponents have negotiated, and are in the process of negotiating agreements that contain terms dealing with how projects are implemented, and how credit is given Bonneville for existence and enhancement values of wildlife projects. The Council hosted discussions on crediting issues should address these matters, but there may not be a final resolution of these issues in time to apply to agreements being negotiated. The Council does want Bonneville and wildlife project sponsors to be sensitized to the fact that the fish and wildlife Program speaks directly to these issues (referencing annualization and the 2:1 accounting used by the Corps), informed largely by the Program's requirement that ?both habitat quality and quantity must be adequate to mitigate for identified losses.? Agreements that contain terms that do not address crediting issues in a manner consistent with providing the quantity and quality of habitat to mitigate for losses may be suspect under Program consistency standards. Therefore, the staff recommends that those engaged in negotiating these agreements develop terms consistent with the Program language and its intent to assure that mitigation is adequate.

(i) Data management projects: These projects were recommended by the ISRP as ?fund for one year? (Streamnet, smolt monitoring, Fish Passage Center, DART, etc.) and will be reviewed as part of a ?systemwide? province following completion of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program amendment process. Staff recommends that these projects be for one year, and sponsors should anticipate the need to incorporate these activities funded by Bonneville into the monitoring and evaluation components of an amended Program in future years.

3. Transition provisions for FY 2000 projects recommended by CBFWA and rated by the ISRP as ?Fund In Part? (27 projects)

If a new proposal (1 project), the Council will make a recommendation on September 21 on that part of the project recommended by the ISRP. The remaining portion of the project will not be funded.
If an existing project (26 projects), the Council will make a recommendation on the projects at the November meetings after the ISRP completes its second review of the project in late October.

4. Transition provisions for FY 2000 projects recommended by CBFWA and rated by the ISRP as ?Delay Funding? (50 projects)

If delay for additional technical information (19 projects), refer to ISRP for approval under provisions described under section 5 below, then:
If approved, fund;
If not approved and a new project, do not fund;
If not approved and an existing project, then treat as a ?Do Not Fund? project that did not meet ISRP standards on a second review. That treatment will involve a Council policy review and/or transition funding and development of a transition plan under section 6.
If delay to establish priorities, Council will provide guidance for compliance to Bonneville and project proponents on September 21. Bonneville will provide documentation of compliance or non-compliance to the Council, which will make final recommendations by November 2.
If delay because programmatic review needed (Note ? The treatment for this category of proposals differs from that which was proposed to the Council in the draft version 4). At the Council work session, it was clarified that proposals falling in this category would be returned to the ISRP (with additional information provided by the sponsor) for purposes of consistency with similarly situated categories).
If approved, fund;
If not approved and a new project, do not fund;
If not approved and an existing project, a Council policy review and/or transition funding will be conducts as described in section 6 below.
Council will provide guidance to Bonneville on September 21 regarding maintaining data management projects pending completion of the amendment process.

5. Transition provisions for FY 2000 projects recommended by CBFWA and rated by the ISRP as ?Do Not Fund? (38 projects)

If a new project (9 projects), do not fund.
Existing projects: sponsors of existing projects in this category will be notified as soon as possible that they have an opportunity to provide or revise their previously submitted responses to the ISRP. The Council considers PATH to be an ongoing project rated as ?Do not fund? by the ISRP.
Responses will be due on October 1st. Responses should not exceed 20 pages in length. If project sponsors believe responses they have already provided through the public comment period on the ISRP report and/or in the August 20, 1999 CBFWA DAIWP are adequate, there is no need to submit additional material. Additional information regarding the opportunity to provide information to the ISRP was posted on the Council web site on and September 7th, and sponsors should refer to that letter for the complete explanation of the second ISRP review process.
ISRP will review the responses and provide written recommendations to the Council in late October.
The Council will consider the ISRP recommendations at its November 2-3 meetings
The Council will provide interim guidance to Bonneville on September 21 for funding projects pending treatments described in this section.
The Council is aware that there are contract renewal dates beginning as early as October. The Council does not intend to have project contracts expire, and funding disappear, while the project sponsor has the opportunity to use this process to have the ISRP reconsider and approve its project, and/or an opportunity to consult with the Council as discussed below.
Council policy reviews of projects that do not pass the second ISRP review will begin in late October. The reviews will determine if there are compelling reasons to fund projects notwithstanding ISRP concerns, and may include consultations with project sponsors.
The Council will make recommendations on projects that pass the second ISRP review and on those projects that have completed Council policy review on November 2. Projects that pass the second ISRP review, and thus are converted into a CBFWA/ISRP consensus recommendation to fund an existing project, will be recommended to be funded until the subbasin review applicable to the project is conducted within the next few years. Projects that are recommended to be funded due to a compelling policy reason notwithstanding a second inability to pass ISRP review may be funded for a duration of time to be determined by the Council, the proponent, and Bonneville.
The Council will hold an extra meeting on November 16 - 17 to make recommendations on projects that did not complete Council policy review prior to November 2.
Existing artificial production projects that have already received peer review at an advanced stage under the 3-Step review process may be considered separately by the Council. The issues raised by the ISRP will be addressed by the Council in the course of 3-Step reviews and in ISRP subbasin reviews. Three projects appear to fit into this category ? the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, the Joint Culture Facility, and Lake Billy Shaw O&M.

6. Transition plans for existing projects not approved for funding as proposed

A transition plan will be developed for each existing project classified as:
?Delay Funding Until Programmatic Review?;
?Do Not fund? or ?Fund in Part? after second review is completed by the ISRP.
Each transition plan will describe the orderly phase-out of the project or maintenance of the project infrastructure or staff until necessary reviews and revisions can be accomplished. New activities in ongoing projects are not likely to be recommended pending completion of province-level reviews.
The purpose of each transition plan, together with the activities and funding consistent with that purpose, will be determined based on consideration of, among other factors, the following:
ISRP comments about the project;
How soon the ISRP review of that subbasin will take place;
Value in continuing specific project activities;
Preservation of existing investments and capabilities;
High priority interim activities, such as assistance in developing and completing subbasin plans.
Transition plans will be prepared in consultation with project sponsors, interest groups, Bonneville staff, and the Council.
The Council will provide definitions and guidance to Bonneville on funding of new activities proposed to be initiated within existing projects pending the development of transition plans. The guidance will generally be that new activities should not be funded.
The Council will provide guidance to Bonneville regarding budget allocations for projects in this category pending completion of transition plans. The Council will approve the guidance prior to the contract renewal period for the project.

7. FY 2000 projects not recommended by CBFWA and rated by the ISRP as ?Fund?

The Council will request that the ISRP prioritize projects in this category based on the following guidance approved by the Council: The prioritization should focus on (1) an initial scoping effort tied to unimplemented elements of the Program, or, (2) projects offering promising approaches to improve upon existing projects; (3) projects that have systemwide, or at least sub-basin wide, significance, as distinguished from primarily site-specific significance, should receive higher consideration, and (4) projects that advance critical assessment or planning tasks in watersheds or sub-basins in which the Panel found these elements deficient should receive higher consideration.
The Council will establish a set budget for these projects and recommend the top ranked projects that fall within that amount by September 21. The range of the budget for this category of projects is likely to fall between $2 million (the amount described in last year's Council decision document) and $7.8 million (the total for all projects in this category).
The Council may conduct policy reviews of these projects before making recommendations.

8. Reserve for watershed assessments and subbasin planning

Funding provided in some cases for assessment and planning work necessary to produce a subbasin plan.

9. Require annual reports and other fiscal and consistency controls as necessary

Project sponsors would continue to have annual reporting requirements;
BPA contracts should require completion of reports and required benchmarks before continuation of funding;
Council will work with Bonneville, the managers and others to develop criteria for fiscal management and project budgets and accounting.

10. Funds available for FY 2000

The CBFWA project submittal identified the funds available in the direct program budget for FY 2000 based on several assumptions. The Council is aware that Bonneville does not concur in all of the assumptions made by CBFWA. The Council will review both the CBFWA and Bonneville assumptions that affect the available funds for FY 2000, and make its recommendation on or before September 21. Representatives from Council staff, Bonneville, and CBFWA have tentatively agreed to meet to discuss options for agreeing on a start of year available budget.

11. Analyze overall budget for balancing

Note: Unless the context indicates otherwise, ?fund? means that the Council would recommend to the Bonneville Power Administration that a project be funded. The Council's fish and wildlife program is established by statute for implementation by Bonneville, and the Council itself does not directly fund fish and wildlife mitigation. However, in recent years, Bonneville has followed the Council recommendations closely.

top