FY07-09 proposal 200728700

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This proposal addresses a high priority regional need and generally is justified as “fundable.” However, the ISRP requests a response to address the following issues. As indicated in the background section of the proposal, the sponsors intend to create a rigorous and transparent review process for technical analyses and reviews at the request of agencies, tribes, and the public. However, there is a lack of specific details and references to justify the need for this process. With such a long history, since 1982, there should be voluminous information to construct a more detailed background. A response is requested to better document the need for a regional review process and describe how it will serve the Fish and Wildlife Program. A response is also requested for clarification of the peer review function of this proposal described in Work Element B of Objective 2. If funded, the peer review component of the proposal should be closely coordinated with the ISAB and the ISRP because there is potential for overlap. The Council, NMFS, and the Columbia River Tribes purposefully established the ISAB as a central body to provide independent review of scientific issues facing the Columbia River Basin. The ISRP emphasizes that there should be a direct line of communication to the ISAB and ISRP to avoid overlapping purposes and assignments. The ISRP understands some initial discussions on coordination between Battelle, Council staff, and the ISAB/ISRP coordinator have occurred. If this project continues to be funded, this coordination should be formalized and include the ISAB and ISRP Executive Committees. An example of a potential review that would directly overlap the ISRP function of reviewing a proposal for a study is discussed in comments on the methods below. There appears to be some routine in-house-type peer review of draft reports that is distinct from ISRP and ISAB tasks and is wholly appropriate. Other comments: Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Council’s Mainstem Amendments (2003) are cited as including a Fish Passage Center/function as a required element of the Fish and Wildlife Program. Relationships to other projects: The sponsors made no attempt to describe links to other projects in the basin, although there likely are many that could be described. Objectives: The objectives and work elements are well thought out, clearly stated, and appear well justified. Tasks (work elements) and methods: There is a lack of details regarding Work Element A of Objective 1. The figure is helpful but adequate details of the management, analysis, and reporting functions are lacking. In Work Element B of Objective 2, the methods are described in adequate detail, but there appears to be a potential overlap in the review function described in the proposal with review functions of the ISRP and ISAB. The following two selected sections from the proposal describe some of the potentially overlapping review protocols: "When a proposal, analysis, or result is presented for review, it will be sent to two qualified technical experts for review (Figure 2), along with relevant background info compiled by the fish passage data management system on fish passage as it relates to the product submitted for review. Depending upon the product submitted for review, the reviewers would evaluate the methodology selected, the sampling design, the feasibility of obtaining samples, and any other aspects that are critical to the results. If those reviewers agree the work is technically acceptable, the product will be released for use." "For example, if an entity wishes to conduct a study of summer spill at McNary Dam, they could submit their study design for review. Relevant background information would be provided on operations at McNary, including sampling effort, historical collection counts, etc. Independent reviewers would then be asked to evaluate whether the design was technically sufficient to accomplish its stated objectives. If those reviewers agreed that the design was sufficient, then a memo would be provided attesting to that finding. If the design were found to be lacking, it would be rejected unless revisions were made to address important shortcomings." The example in paragraph two, of how a proposed study would be reviewed, sounds almost exactly like the function of the ISAB or ISRP and may be a duplicative review process, which seems illogical to have in the same Fish and Wildlife Program.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors of this proposal have provided a response that narrows the focus of the project to better accommodate the uncertainties associated with the status of the Fish Passage Center. They now propose to primarily focus on a peer-review process for technical analyses and review at the request of agencies, tribes, and the public. In their preliminary review the ISRP also requested a response for clarification of the peer review function of this proposal described in Work Element B of Objective 2. If funded, the peer review component of the proposal should be closely coordinated with the ISAB and the ISRP because there is potential for overlap. In their response, the sponsors emphasize that they will work closely with Council staff and the ISRP/ISAB coordinator to avoid any overlap or duplication of review functions performed by the ISRP or ISAB. The recommended qualification is to ensure that this coordination occurs with the ISAB and ISRP, which according to Council staff, seems to be taking place with little chance for redundancy of effort.