 |
1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
| Council document 94-55 | |
 |
|
3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
The goal of this program can be achieved only if all parties in the Columbia River Basin learn from its implementation. This policy of learning by doing is called ?adaptive management.? Faced with substantial biological uncertainty, the parties involved should act affirmatively to protect and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydropower development and operations. They must design projects carefully so that information can be collected to improve future management decisions. Projects should test quantitative hypotheses wherever possible, taking into account the need for control or comparison cases and for statistical validity.
Adaptive management is a scientific policy. It calls for a conscious effort to improve fish and wildlife management, using elements of this program as experiments that can provide useful information not otherwise available. Adaptive management also is a system policy, combining monitoring, evaluation and research throughout the Columbia River Basin so that the aggregated effects of this program can be detected, assessed and improved over time. The system monitoring and evaluation process described below will aid adaptive management by providing feedback on program projects.
The purpose of these monitoring and evaluation activities is to ensure that the region systematically improves its knowledge of what measures work, what measures do not and why. To help identify areas where we most need to improve our understanding and to focus research and evaluation, the Council is calling on an independent scientific group (see Section 3.2B, below) to identify ?key uncertainties?--questions whose answers are most crucial to the success of program measures in rebuilding salmon and steelhead populations. These questions will be used by the implementation process in identifying measures to be implemented, and by the Council and the region in reviewing the annual implementation work plan, to be sure that the approach to learning is well thought through. The Council sees this as a critical step in carrying out an adaptive management approach to salmon and steelhead rebuilding. The Council recognizes that the region cannot expect perfect knowledge before taking action and must act on the basis of the best information available at that time.
The Council expects to learn not only from program implementation, but also from the Endangered Species Act and other federal processes, which will tend to focus federal agency implementation of the Council program, other salmon recovery measures and other analyses of salmon recovery. The Council does not expect to amend its program each time a new development occurs. Rather, over the course of several years, a group of program issues may emerge, and an amendment process can be initiated. This will require the Council not only to pay careful attention to this program's evaluation processes, but to monitor the National Marine Fisheries Service's consultation process.
3.2A Program Monitoring
Council
3.2A.1 Coordinate monitoring efforts connected with this program. This includes the rebuilding schedules (Section 4.3), identification of index stocks and monitoring needs (Section 4.3C), and performance standards (Section 4.3B). The Council will facilitate the development and implementation of these measures and ensure that these monitoring efforts are coordinated with the program evaluation described in Section 3.2B. The Council will also ensure that information from these programs is transmitted to the coordinated information system (Section 3.3) and the annual monitoring report (Section 3.3B). Problems encountered in developing these sections should be brought to the Council for review and action.
3.2A.2 In consultation with fishery managers, prepare an annual report evaluating program progress. This report should be based on the annual monitoring report from the Coordinated Information System (Section 3.3), and should evaluate progress toward the rebuilding schedules, performance standards, and other goals and objectives of this program.
3.2B Independent Scientific Evaluation
Bonneville
3.2B.1 Expeditiously act to develop and fund an Independent Scientific Group to provide a biennial evaluation of the program on its scientific merits and to fulfill other tasks described in this program. The group should examine the scientific underpinnings of the program and evaluate the program as a vehicle to achieve the Council's goals and those of the Northwest Power Act.
The Independent Scientific Group should consist of people with strong natural or social science experience who have demonstrated an ability to provide independent review of complex environmental issues. The group (and contract or staff support for the group) should be organized and funded to ensure the scientific credibility of its evaluations, free of institutional constraints or biases. The initial members of the independent scientific group should be the present members of Bonneville's Scientific Review Group. Additional and future members of the group should be appointed by the policy group described in Section 3.2B.2 from a list of candidates submitted by the Independent Scientific Group. The group may suggest improvements in the program, in research projects, in the coordinated information system, or in the implementation process, including changes that would facilitate evaluation. Bonneville should take all steps necessary to ensure that this group is operational by January 1, 1995, including provision for support staff and other needed resources.
Independent Scientific Group
3.2B.2 The group should make use of the past efforts of the Council's Monitoring and Evaluation Group. The Independent Scientific Group also should review questions submitted by the Council or through the implementation process. The group should be compensated fully for its time and travel.
Bonneville, Fishery Managers and the Council
3.2B.3 To ensure the independence of the scientific group described in Section 3.2B.1, organize a policy group representing each of the three entities. The policy group will select members of the scientific group based on a list of candidates proposed by the Independent Scientific Group. The policy group should also provide a focus for policy issues related to the Independent Scientific Group and will assist the Independent Scientific Group in identifying appropriate issues and developing an annual work plan.
3.2C Key Uncertainties
Independent Scientific Group
3.2C.1 Identify and revise over time specific key uncertainties associated with program measures. These key uncertainties should be those information needs most critical to the achievement of program goals, and rebuilding and survival targets. These uncertainties should be used to guide the prioritization and funding of research efforts conducted under this program.
Council
3.2C.2 Refine and elaborate analyses of the relative contributions of various human activities to fish mortality. Circulate the resulting analyses for public review. There is continuing debate over the contribution of various human activities to salmon mortality. To a certain extent, this debate involves complex interactions that would lend themselves to evaluation only after lengthy, basic research and analysis. However, several parties have offered analyses that provide a general picture of relative contributions to fish mortality, and the Council believes it may be worthwhile to refine these analyses in an effort to arrive at a common understanding of these questions.
3.2D Endangered Species Act
Monitoring and Coordination
The National Marine Fisheries Service has responsibility for salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Service's Salmon Recovery Team has recommended that the Service establish a Salmon Oversight Committee to oversee activities affecting listed populations. The Independent Scientific Group described above shares many features in common with the proposed Salmon Oversight Committee and could serve the needs of both the Council and the Service. The Council intends to work with the Service to coordinate any scientific and policy issues with the Council and the Independent Scientific Group.
Council
3.2D.1 Monitor the Endangered Species Act consultation process to ensure that program monitoring and evaluation results are considered, and that the Council is aware of developments in river operations, harvest, habitat and production activities that may suggest the need for program amendments.
3.2E Prioritization and Cost Effectiveness
Council
3.2E.1 Continue to review program measures for purposes of prioritization, cost-effectiveness and biological effectiveness.
3.2F Regional Analytical Methods Coordination
To develop and assess regional strategies to rebuild fish and wildlife populations, and to make the program framework operational, analytical tools should be developed that are both understandable and credible. Computer models and other analytical methods are essential to the program framework. They provide a means to link program measures to survival targets, rebuilding schedules and rebuilding targets. A variety of tools may be developed that span legitimate scientific differences or reflect different approaches. This process should not stifle these differences, but instead should promote understanding of their implications. However, the region should integrate these tools into a unified approach. The Council applauds the considerable progress in this direction, and calls on the technical staffs of the various parties to expedite development of analytical tools and their documentation to assist decision-making.
All computer models are based on imperfect knowledge. They cannot fully represent the complexity of the Columbia River ecosystem, much less predict the future. There remain major uncertainties regarding the biological effectiveness of some measures. Models necessarily incorporate assumptions that are debatable, even where they are based on the best available scientific knowledge.
In the past few years, considerable progress has been made in the development of analytical tools. Modelers and analysts have devoted considerable effort in coordinating their activities and increasing their understanding of each group's analytical tools. However, substantial inefficiencies remain that hamper development of needed analysis. These reflect the number of regional resources devoted to these activities and institutional structures that encourage each entity to develop its own unique analytical tools.
To deal with this, the Council calls for the development of a regional center for biological analysis. This center would provide the resources to house analysts and staff necessary to perform modeling and other analysis to support regional efforts, such as this program and activities in connection with the Endangered Species Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service
3.2F.1 Develop a center for regional biological analysis. This center should provide the resources and support necessary to develop regional analytical tools and to provide analysis needed to support regional efforts such as this program and activities in connection with the Endangered Species Act. Personnel for this center should come primarily from the various regional entities involved in these activities, on a limited fellowship basis. The mission of the center will be to foster a coordinated and objective approach to development of analytical tools and needed analysis. The analytical effort should be closely tied to the Coordinated Information System. For this reason, and to provide an administrative structure, the Council recommends that this center be administered through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Bonneville Power Administration
3.2F.2 Jointly provide the funds and resources necessary for the development and operation of the center for biological analysis described in Section 3.2F.1. Develop a procedure for sharing the associated costs to ensure the efficient operation of the center over time.
3.2G Disseminate Research and Monitoring Information
Bonneville and Corps of Engineers
3.2G.1 Annually publish a summary of results from all studies funded under the program. This should consist of concise descriptions of the project, results to date and future directions. Summaries should be prepared by the contractors, and compiled and published by Bonneville.
3.2G.2 Specify as part of the above task that summaries of research originating from the fish and wildlife program be submitted to the Coordinated Information System in appropriate form for incorporation into its research information data base. Fund the development of similar summaries for prior research conducted under the fish and wildlife program.
3.2G.3 Hold annual symposiums at which contractors present the results of their studies, beginning in March 1993. The purpose of these symposiums is two-fold: first, to promote the use of research and monitoring information funded under this program by managers and non-research personnel, and second, to provide peer review and coordination of research within the research community.