FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200303600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

We have only shown budget estimates for FY2003 to FY2005 because this is an application for three years of funding. If successful, it is anticipated that this collaborative M&E program will continue for more years. All subcontracts include salaries, benefits, travel and CBFWA's 12.8% contract administration fee. Task level budget are available for individual subcontractors. Additional budget refinements are expected as project coordination continues.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Implementation-related issues:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The proposal needs to more clearly define "classes" of management actions (page 6).
4. A monitoring and evaluation plan for the project itself is needed.
5. 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:

1. the NMFS Biological Opinion and the Federal Caucus' Basinwide Salmon Strategy RME Program;
2. NMFS and USFWS TRT Recovery Planning;
3. the NWPPC's Provincial Review Process;
4. Data Protocols and Data Needs Assessment Contracts;
5. Subbasin Planning;
6. the Regional Analytical Advisory Committee;
7. USFS , BLM, and EPA Monitoring Programs;
8. Oregon and Washington State Monitoring Programs;
9. the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program; and
10. the Corps of Engineer's AFEP Program.

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS is included in proposal sponsors. Comment is inappropriate.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:
Check ties to overall CBFWA project (#1989-062-01) for any overlap.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website