FY 2000 proposal 199600600

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

Schedule Constraints: Litigation among agencies. Unexpected delays in 1999 decision on Snake River. uncertain. Unexpected problems with run reconstructions and model development.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal does not clearly describe PATH organizational structure. Historically, there was a need for facilitation of some sort of scientific consensus process with respect to modeling. But with respect to the original question, deciding between two competing passage mortality models, the answer has been delivered: the available data, evidently, cannot discriminate between the models. To continue PATH, there needs to be a definition of a new mission. Logically, if the available data are not sufficient to answer the management questions, the focus of scientific consensus building in the basin should shift to design of data collection programs that will deliver data that can answer the questions. In some ways, the facilitation, participation, consensus, and advisory structures evolved by PATH can serve as useful models for the future. But it is not a foregone conclusion that the exact structure and personnel of PATH should be replicated in Toto for addressing the new mission. Given the limitations of the data available to PATH, there are concomitant limitations on the conclusions drawn by PATH. To this extent, the PATH process has not simplified the information for policy makers. The sub-proposals are variable in their quality. Some do not add significant information on the coordination of all elements of the project and on the participation and input of individual members. The sum of commitments of person/years of the principal investigators to these projects is not clear.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The responses show that PATH is fully aware of the need to reinvent the region's processes for planning data collection design and experimental management. The ISRP agrees that objective 3 "experimental management" is the direction the region should pursue. Until the management structure for the region also reinvents itself to better deal with these planning and implementation tasks, there seems to be no alternative to continuing interim funding for PATH to function in its analytical role.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: The PATH projects and process are designed to test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.

ISRP Reviews: Do not fund in the initial review. Fund for transition in the October 29, 1999 report. In both reports the ISRP recommended a different and revised process geared principally toward data collection and design issues for the basin, identifying data needs that are directly linked to management responses, and to coordinating data needs in the basin in an efficient and timely manner.

Council Recommendation: The Council recommendation consists of four major parts. Collectively, the four-part recommendation concurs with and incorporates the ISRP recommendations.

Recommendation Part 1: The three projects identified above should receive transition funding in a combined amount of $330,000 in Fiscal Year 2000, and also have remaining Fiscal Year 1999 funds available to complete the following tasks, with a planning target date that these tasks be completed by March 2000:

1. Complete experimental management options and associated monitoring and evaluation. (2/00)
2. Update spawner recruit information for the Snake River, mid-and lower Columbia River spring/summer Chinook stocks (12/99).
3. Assist with stock status for Quantitative Analytical Reports (QAR) for upper Columbia and lower Columbia stocks.
4. Assist in development of analysis for QAR.
5. SRP review of fall Chinook and experimental management reports.
6. ESSA and PATH work with NMFS to complete development of CRI metrics for PATH outputs to facilitate comparison.
7. ESSA and PATH work with Council to completed development of EDT metrics for PATH outputs to facilitate comparison.
8. ESSA to provide to Council data files (full outputs) from all model runs reported in PATH spring/summer Chinook (12/8) and fall Chinook (11/99) reports.
9. ESSA to provide to Council copies of Bayesian Simulation Model.
10. Anderson to provide to Council a copy of the CriSP model, including input files used for PATH spring/summer and fall chinook reports.
11. Publish PATH methods/results in peer-reviewed journal.
12. Assess key differences between PATH and CRI.
13. Assess feasibility of actions to improve survivals at different life stages.

Recommendation Part 2: Beyond the completion of these specific activities, the Council recommends that its staff work with state, tribal and federal parties who have participated in PATH to develop a new data collection and analysis system that has the following five attributes:

The new data system would have to meet certain specific needs of the Council and the region. For example, a new data system would:

1. Allow the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of each individual project funded by BPA.
2. Allow the Council to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Council's program;
3. Provide baseline populations from which the Council can establish meaningful quantitative goals;
4. Allow the region to evaluate progress on recovery measures for all endangered species;
5. Include all species relevant to the Council's program: anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife.

Recommendation Part 3: The Council expects that any data system proposal will include provisions for oversight and management to ensure accountability and orderly administration.

Recommendation Part 4: The Council may ask that the ISRP or ISAB review the data management system, and take comments of those bodies into account in making its funding recommendation. Part 3, item 27, below, provides additional discussion regarding the Council's treatment of the ISRP's recommendations about the funding of PATH-related projects.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: