FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide Proposal 200303600

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Project Location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

This information comes from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reviews of this project proposal. The following table represents BPA & NMFS determinations as to this proposal's relevance to particular Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs).

Reviewing Agency	Action Number	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 180	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.

Information Transfer

CBFWA-Generated Information

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Reason for change in scope

Cost Sharing

Outyear Budget Totals

Other Budget Explanation

Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 2002-13	Recommendation: Fundable only if response is adequate	Date: Aug 2, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment: This proposal addresses one of the major management deficiencies in the basin, the lack of a top-down basin-wide monitoring protocol. Such a protocol is of critical importance for assessing changes in stock and environmental conditions and the effectiveness of restoration and mitigation actions. Thus, this proposal is potentially a high priority for funding. Several issues, however, need to be addressed by the sponsors. Implementation-related issues: Independent oversight of the project is needed to track progress and identify potential problems before they get out of hand. The ISRP should rigorously review the progress of this project annually if it is funded. All major work products such as the Design Plans and Data Analysis Reports should be subject to independent peer review by reviewers selected by the ISRP. The reports of the peer-review panels should be submitted to the ISRP and included in their annual review of the project. The sponsors should comprehensively respond to each concern raised in the ISRP's annual review. The ISRP's recommendations for future funding will be based in part on these annual reviews. To what extent does the proposed work overlap, duplicate, or complement other ongoing or planned monitoring and evaluation projects within the basin? If this project is funded will it replace the M&E component of other projects? If so, how will coordination be accomplished? How would this project affect the dedicated RME proposals submitted in this province? Action agencies may need to modify their current M&E protocols to conform to the recommendation of the basinwide program. Is there a firm commitment from state, federal, and tribal entities to adopt the monitoring protocols resulting from this project? The USFS and the BLM are not listed as cooperators in the proposal, yet they have management responsibility for the bulk of federal lands in the basin. How will coordination with these agencies be achieved? Project Organization Issues: The key questions developed for each Tier should be explicitly related to general recovery goals and objectives for the basin and subbasins. For example, what are the basin-wide goals and objectives for salmonid recovery and how will addressing the key Tier 1 questions ensure progress toward meeting those goals? The same question could be asked for provinces, subbasins, and ESU's. The proposal focuses principally on development of a basinwide monitoring program but the evaluation of the data collected through monitoring is barely discussed. Evaluation is a critical component in the M&E process without which the key questions cannot be answered. The proposal needs to explicitly address how the evaluation component (i.e., analysis of the monitoring data) will be incorporated into the process. Specific methods for analysis are not required in the proposal but a general plan for the conduct of analyses is needed. Perhaps the proposal should be retitled "Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring Program" with the monitoring data to be available to the region for evaluation? Methodological Issues: The key questions mostly appear to address system state, for example, biological and physical habitat "condition." Physical (e.g., geomorphic and hydrologic) and biological (e.g., species interactions, habitat relationships) processes determine system state and are subject to modification by human actions. Critical ecological elements such as habitat stability and connectivity, metapopulation dynamics, and genetic and life history diversity are barely touched upon, if at all. The key questions and, in fact, the entire protocol development should be more process-based, explicitly emphasizing ecological processes and functions as much as states. Tier 3 is their "effectiveness monitoring of recovery projects" and is in direct competition with the BPA-RME program. The sponsors approach to effectiveness monitoring is an attempt to standardize research experiments from the top down, which may not be possible. Effectiveness monitoring (research) should be called for in RFPs to answer specific questions. For Tier 2 monitoring, impacts of non-native species need to be explicitly considered. The proposal needs to more clearly define "classes" of management actions (page 6). A monitoring and evaluation plan for the project itself is needed. What is meant by the statement"...Tier 1 data layers are intended to be coarse-scale assessments that do not capture interannual variation and spatial variation in covariate magnitude." Specifically what does "in covariate magnitude" mean? In addition, the Coded Wire Tag Programs that are among the primary monitoring and evaluation programs for stock identification in the harvest, magnitude of harvest on various stocks, etc. should be brought under this integrated effort to catalogue, make available, critically assess, and improve systemwide monitoring and evaluation for fish and ecosystem status. Other projects that should be brought under this overarching project to provide system-wide monitoring and evaluation include parts of or all of projects #198810804 (StreamNet), #198712700 (Smolt Monitoring), #199008000 (PTAGIS), #199403300 (FPC), and #199602000 (CSS). Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments: PLANNING GROUP - This project is well written and has several valuable objectives and tasks that are needed by the region. However, most all of the objectives and tasks are currently underway as part of other regional processes and associated contracts or proposals such as: the NMFS Biological Opinion and the Federal Caucus' Basinwide Salmon Strategy RME Program; NMFS and USFWS TRT Recovery Planning; the NWPPC's Provincial Review Process; Data Protocols and Data Needs Assessment Contracts; Subbasin Planning; the Regional Analytical Advisory Committee; USFS , BLM, and EPA Monitoring Programs; Oregon and Washington State Monitoring Programs; the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program; and the Corps of Engineer's AFEP Program. The NMFS and Federal Action Agencies have developed a draft RME framework that overlaps much of the needs of the Fish and Wildlife Program and other Federal and state RME programs. A regional workgroup session in September, 2002 with the formation of an RME Regional Coordination Group is already planned to provide a collaborative process for coordinating these overlapping programs. The state and tribal fishery agencies, CBFWA, USFWS, and the NWPPC will be included in this Regional Coordination Group as well as other key agencies for the RME Programs identified above. This coordination effort will include resident fish RME needs under the USFWS BiOp. The work proposed by 35033 would be redundant to these other processes and associated contracts. The proposal also appears to duplicate current CBFWA support contract objectives of coordinating the state and tribal fisheries agencies and the region. In addition, funding is proposed for federal and state employees that are already requirements under current programs and activities. ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments: The RME Committee comments raise similar issues as those identified in the ISRP's question 2 under Implementation-related issues above.
CBFWA Funding Recommendation	Recommendation: Core Program*	Date: Oct 24, 2002
2003 2004 2005 $968,800 $968,802 $968,802
Comment: This project would develop a regional M&E effort based on existing, on the ground monitoring efforts. The proposal was developed to address the Stock Status Program Summary specifically as it relates to the NMFS BiOp, as well as other aquatic resources. The proposal is the only existing proposal that addresses all the needs that have been identified by the Federal Action Agencies RME workgroup. * Failing to fund this project immediately will pose a high risk of significant and immediate negative impact on successful implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program.
CBFWA FY03 Budget Review Comments	Recommendation: Core Program*	Date: Oct 24, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment: Due to the apparent lack of available funds for new start projects, the project sponsors reduced the budget by 3% across the board.
ISRP Final Review , ISRP 2002-14	Recommendation: Fund	Date: Nov 5, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment: Fundable. High priority. Agree with CBFWA's Core Program ranking. This proposal addresses one of the major management deficiencies in the basin, namely the lack of a coordinated basinwide monitoring program. Such a program is of critical importance for assessing changes in stock and environmental conditions and the effectiveness of restoration and mitigation actions. Thus, this proposal is of urgent priority for immediate funding. The sponsors answered all questions and addressed all concerns expressed by the ISRP in our preliminary review including the need for independent oversight and outside peer review. This project provides an urgently needed umbrella framework to 1) collaboratively develop systemwide M&E protocols and 2) coordinate data collection activities, protocols, and standards. The basic objective of the Collaborative System wide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP) project is a coordinating mechanism for individual M&E projects rather than assuming all M&E activities into itself. It appears to the ISRP that this proposal is in direct competition with the planned activities of the Action Agency/NMFS RME Group. Competition between the RME Group, currently funded by BPA, and this project CSMEP (#35033), proposed by CBFWA and recommended by the ISRP, is a problem to be resolved in the political arena. We emphasize that resolution of this competition and development of a coordinated Columbia Basin wide monitoring program is critical for collection of the best quantity, quality, and utility of scientific data to evaluate the efforts of the region to recover fish and wildlife habitat and populations. Several ongoing monitoring and database projects are already under the general direction of the CBFWA or advisor committees made up of mostly CBFWA members, including parts of or all of projects #198810804 (StreamNet), #198712700 (Smolt Monitoring), #199008000 (PTAGIS), #199403300 (FPC), and #199602000 (CSS). If #35033 is funded then the functional melding of #35033 with these projects is likely assured. CBFWA as the project sponsors do not propose to formally bring other existing M&E projects under this project in the foreseeable future, but rather to coordinate activities with these other projects, and collaboratively improve the systemwide information to aid decision-making. As proposed by CBFWA, project #35033 does not propose to incorporate administration and implementation of these projects, or to dictate individual project M&E actions and protocols for existing M&E projects. However, project #35033 does propose to integrate relevant Tier 1, 2 and 3 data from component programs into a systemwide M&E program, and make recommendations for filling critical information gaps related to key management questions facing the region. It was refreshing to see in the NMFS Proposal #35019 (Develop and Implement a Pilot Status and Trend Monitoring Program for Salmonids and their Habitat in the Wenatchee and Grande Ronde River Basins) that one of the Action Agencies agrees with the ISRP that the CBFWA proposal #35033 contains the necessary collaborative components to implement a comprehensive monitoring program basinwide. We note that NMFS is also an active member of the CBFWA. Proposals #35033 and #35019 (and by extension, parts of the other NMFS proposals #35016, #35020 and #35048) could be combined with other ongoing projects to provide a systemwide monitoring and evaluation project. The ISRP could not agree more with the statement in the NMFS proposal #35019 that "The absolutely essential elements of 35033 that the other projects lack is the basinwide perspective, both in the collaborative representation of nearly all fisheries management agencies, as well as the inclusion of fishes other than anadromous salmonids. Ultimately, the most efficient manner for the Columbia River basin to approach a comprehensive monitoring program would be in the form of integrated aquatic ecosystem health assessment. Components of the above 5 projects, plus many ongoing monitoring programs, if coordinated within a single purpose, design, and data management and evaluation framework, could produce the ideal monitoring program for the basin's aquatic natural resources." Unfortunately, there are some technical deficiencies or incomplete methods in the NMFS proposals #35016, #35020 and #35048 and the ISRP cannot give unqualified support to these proposals at this time. The proposed Project #35033 is broader, both in scope and participation, than other M&E projects proposed in the systemwide province and, therefore, has a higher probability of success and should receive priority for immediate funding. The CSMEP project provides an environment for developing and coordinating common data collection protocols and standards. Several logistical and institutional issues remain to be resolved, but the ISRP believes that this proposal has the best potential to significantly improve the quantity, quality, and utility of scientific data for evaluation of fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Basin.
NMFS Review	Recommendation:	Date: Jan 21, 2003
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment: Statement of Potential Biological Benefit Indirect. Collaborative effort among agencies to document existing monitoring data, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing monitoring and evaluation efforts through workshops and work groups. Comments NMFS is included in proposal sponsors. Comment is inappropriate. Already ESA Required? No Biop? Yes
NWPPC Funding Recommendation	Recommendation: Fund (Tier 1)	Date: Jun 11, 2003
2004 2005 2006 $968,800 $968,802 $968,802
Comment: Category: 1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation Comments: Check ties to overall CBFWA project (#1989-062-01) for any overlap.
BPA Funding Decision	Recommendation:	Date: Aug 4, 2003
2004 2005 2006 $968,800 $968,802 $968,802
Comment: Negotiations with CBFWA and other regional entities are ongoing, resulting in more focused project than originally proposed, nearing closure.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review	Funding category: expense	Date: May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year: $968,802 FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary: $968,802 FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year: $968,802
Sponsor (CBFWA) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page