Request for ISRP review of RM&E/AP projects

July 15, 2010

Dr. Eric J. Loudenslager, Chair
Independent Scientific Review Panel

Dear Dr. Loudenslager:

In February 2009, the Council adopted a revision of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program), the first complete revision since 2005. The revised program: 1) strengthens monitoring and evaluation; 2) seeks to improve project performance and fiscal accountability; and 3) continues the Council's commitment to independent scientific review of all projects in the Program. In implementing the revised Program, the Council intends to maximize funding of on-the-ground mitigation efforts while conducting an efficient monitoring and research program that meets the priority needs of the region.

In June, the Council began a review of all research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) projects in the program. Artificial production, mainstem, and systemwide research projects also are included in this category. See list of projects being reviewed as part of the RM&E+ Categorical Review.

The purpose of this letter is to ask the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) to review the project proposals mindful of the Council’s goal to reduce duplicative or excessive levels of research, monitoring, and evaluation. While setting a hard and fast budget-reduction target is premature, the Council intends to recommend appropriate adjustments to projects and apply savings to on-the-ground work. To support that goal, the Council asks the ISRP to consider how and to what extent each project supports and is consistent with the following key policies that are described in the Program and framed here as questions:

• Is the project scale and resource commitment appropriate for the project’s objectives?
• For research projects, is a critical uncertainty being addressed? What is the hypothesis being tested, and is it prioritized in the Research Plan? The Fish and Wildlife Program and draft Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan favor projects than can generate or develop tools to better inform management decisions and to deploy Program resources more efficiently.
• Is the monitoring or research conducted by a project proportional to the biological risk or project success risk? For example, actions that have a high risk of negatively impacting fish or wildlife or have a high risk of not achieving their intended outcome may require a higher level of monitoring. On the other hand, tried-and-true projects that are generally considered lower risk, such as riparian fencing, riparian planting, and culvert replacement, may require less monitoring. This should not be interpreted as diminishing the Council’s commitment to such lower-risk projects, but rather as acknowledging that differing levels of research, monitoring, and evaluation may be appropriate.
• Does the project contribute valuable data to inform one of the nine program-management questions from the working list proposed by the Council and the associated High Level Indicators? See the nine proposed basinwide management questions and associated indicators. The Council is seeking data for these questions and indicators to help evaluate whether the Program is fulfilling its charge under the Act.
• What does the ISRP see as major accomplishments of these projects, and are the data derived from the projects useful and relevant? The Council has requested each project sponsor provide this information in a summary form with their project descriptions, and we ask that the ISRP evaluate their responses.
• Is the project part of a comprehensive monitoring program? Projects should not duplicate or be redundant with similar efforts elsewhere in the basin and should be designed to operate efficiently and in an integrated, cost-effective manner.
• Does the project fill a priority Program data gap, or is the project required by a biological opinion or a recovery plan for species listed under the Endangered Species Act? Data generated by the project should provide new information.
• Does the project’s RM&E data have a reasonable certainty or a reasonable confidence level? For example, does the RM&E data meet the preponderance of evidence test? Project data should be designed and reported in a manner that can facilitate their use in adaptive management and guide policymakers in making good decisions related to the project’s topic.
• Is the project consistent with the general principles of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG)? Projects should 1) address the HSRG’s scientific analysis to the extent to which the HSRG’s recommendations are applicable to the project, and 2) be consistent with both the Program and strategies to protect wild fish. A project may use adequate alternative strategies to achieve the HSRG principles.
• Are data produced by the project fully described, including metadata and methodologies used, easily available for public review, and capable of being used to aggregate data to a an appropriate higher scale, such as a broader geographic scale or population scale? Projects also should facilitate sharing and reporting of their data with the public in an easily understandable and accessible manner.
• How should the Council consider the impact of ocean conditions on fish and wildlife populations in making its final recommendations to Bonneville?

Consistent with the Council’s strengthened commitment to monitoring and evaluating project performance, the revised Program calls for designing a comprehensive monitoring program. As you know, the Council is well on its way to accomplishing this goal, having developed a list of High Level Indicators and a draft MERR Plan, it is important to the current categorical review. The ISRP should feel free to consult the draft MERR Plan when evaluating projects in this review.

Proposals are due to the Council on July 30, 2010. Because the ISRP plays a key role in informing our policy decisions, we look forward to the ISRP’s advice on how to monitor a large geographic area with complex biological and ecosystem challenges in a cost-effective and efficient manner. We will appreciate receiving your preliminary review by October 14, 2010.

Thank you for your efforts to assist us in implementing the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Sincerely,

Bruce A. Measure, Chair