Regional Coordination
In the 2009 Program, the NPCC states that it benefits from the coordinated efforts of many groups, committees and organizations in implementing the Program on an ongoing basis (NPCC Document 2009-09). Continued coordination of various Program elements is expected, supported, and in some cases financed by BPA. The elements below represent the key areas in which the NPCC seeks continued coordinated efforts from fish and wildlife managers and interested parties throughout the Columbia River Basin. The NPCC suggested coordination funding should be focused on the following elements that support Program implementation:
- Data management (storage, management, and reporting)
- Monitoring and evaluation (framework and approach)
- Developing and tracking biological objectives
- Review of technical documents and processes
- Project proposal review
- Coordination of projects, programs and funding sources within subbasins
- Facilitating and participating in focus workgroups on Program issues
- Information dissemination (technical, policy, and outreach)
This proposal identifies deliverables for each of these coordination elements in the Work Type Details section (under the Program Coordination subsection).
In 2007, the NPCC established a regional coordination placeholder and asked NPCC staff and project sponsors to define regional coordination activities, implementers, and costs (http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/budget/2007/finalrec/programmatic.pdf). Representatives from the existing regional coordination groups (i.e., CBFWA, Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), NPCC staff, BPA, and Upper Snake River Tribes developed a long-term proposal describing appropriate regional coordination needs and activities. In addition, the group completed the white paper "Regional Coordination for the Fish and Wildlife Program Today and Tomorrow: Current Status and Proposed Future Direction" (CBFWA 2007a), which includes a definition of regional coordination, the adaptive management framework for which coordination is based, and how each entity fits into this framework. The white paper serves two purposes: 1) to be used as supporting documentation for detailed work plans and budget requests for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and 2009, and 2) a basis for Program amendment recommendations. The following excerpts from the white paper highlight the need for coordination as described in the Northwest Power Act (Act):
•The Act requires that the Columbia River Basin be treated as a system, and the 2000 [and 2009] Program is a biological framework approach to mitigation implemented through 58 subbasin plans. This necessitates close coordination between planners and implementers of the Program throughout each level -- subbasin, ecological province, basinwide -- and through each step of the adaptive management process (plan, implement, evaluate) that guides implementation of the Program.
•The Act also directs the NPCC and BPA to consult with the federal and the region’s state fish and wildlife agencies and the region’s appropriate Indian tribes in the development and implementation of the Program. Per the Act, “the Council shall develop a program on the basis of such recommendations, supporting documents, and views and information obtained through public comment and participation, and consultation with the agencies, tribes, and customers referred to in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4)…” [Northwest Power Act, §4(h)(5), 94 Stat. 2709.]. The Act also calls for recommendations from the fish and wildlife managers for coordination (including funding) to assist protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources in the Columbia River Basin.
• The Act sets standards that the Program measures must meet, including that they will “complement the existing and future activities of the Federal and region’s State fish and wildlife agencies and appropriate Indian tribes” [Section 4.(h)(6)(A)]; and, “be consistent with the legal rights of appropriate Indian tribes in the region” [Section 4.(h)(6)(D)]. In reviewing amendments to the Program, “the Council, in consultation with appropriate entities, shall resolve …[any] inconsistency in the program giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and legal rights and responsibilities of the Federal and the region’s State fish and wildlife agencies and appropriate Indian tribes” [Section 4.(h)(7)]. The NPCC adopted the first Program in 1982 and, through fish and wildlife manager and public participation, amended it in 1984, 1987, 1991-93, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2003 and most recently with the inclusion of subbasin plans [most recent update in 2009].
•Program success depends on the NPCC’s recognition of the fish and wildlife agencies’ and tribes’ priorities and plans, and their meaningful inclusion in the Program. At the same time, success of the program depends on prompt, coordinated, and cost effective implementation of program measures and projects by all implementers, including the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes, and monitoring and reporting of program success.
•The Act directs the BPA to “exercise such responsibilities [for operating the hydropower system]…to adequately protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat, affected by such projects or facilities in a manner that provides equitable treatment for such fish and wildlife with other purposes for which such system and facilities are managed and operated” [Section 4.(h)(11)(A)]. Section 4.(h)(11)(B) directs the BPA to consult with the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes “in carrying out the provisions of this paragraph [Section 4.(h)(11)(A)] and shall, to the greatest extent practicable, coordinate their actions.
•The Act also calls for Program recommendations specifically for “fish and wildlife management coordination and research and development (including funding) which, among other things, will assist protection, mitigation, and enhancement of anadromous fish at, and between, the region's hydroelectric dams.” [Northwest Power Act, §4(h)(2)(C), 94 Stat. 2708.] The following excerpt from the Act partially explains the BPA’s role and obligation in funding coordination of the fish and wildlife managers in regional discussions regarding operation of the FCRPS and implementation of the NPCC’s Program. To ensure success, Section 4.(g)(3) of the Act states that, “…the Council and the [BPA] Administrator shall encourage the cooperation, participation, and assistance of appropriate Federal agencies, State entities,… and Indian tribes,” and that the NPCC and BPA can contract with the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes individually, “or through associations thereof,” to “provide technical assistance in establishing …fish and wildlife objectives.
•Coordination for the F&W Program requires a meaningful role for the fish and wildlife managers to develop and implement measures in the Program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife populations affected by the Columbia River hydropower system. Each fish and wildlife manager and tribe within the basin must be afforded the opportunity to assess and interact with any and all regional issues associated with the Program, consistent with their inherent responsibilities, interests, and sovereignty. Coordination provides an opportunity for decisions within the Program to benefit from the cumulative information and experience of the fish and wildlife managers and tribes. Coordination is required at the planning, implementation, and evaluation stages of the adaptive management process envisioned for the Program. Benefits to the Program include more efficient Program planning, improved continuity and cohesiveness, and increased effectiveness of the actions that will be implemented by many entities.
NPCC’s draft MERR Plan - Coordination of the Development of Monitoring Implementation Strategies
The following information provides a synopsis of an electronic correspondence that the Foundation staff received from the NPCC staff:
In the 2009 Program Amendment, the NPCC committed to developing an improved framework and strategies for monitoring and evaluating activities and elements implemented through the Program. The draft MERR Plan and the associated implementation strategies are part of that commitment. The draft MERR Plan and the implementation strategies are not formally adopted NPCC documents nor part of the Program, nor will they be the basis on which formal decisions are made in the near-term, including within the geographic review. Instead, the draft MERR Plan and implementation strategies are intended to organize information so the NPCC, the NPCC staff, and others active within the Program are able to understand the RM&E activities stakeholders need to implement or expect to implement over the next few years, and how those specific activities relate to the broader RM&E needs of the Program. It is hoped these documents will be useful as guidance by all relevant parties to link specific RM&E actions to a larger framework. Work will continue on the draft MERR Plan and implementation strategies with the understanding the products will be considered when the Program is amended in 2014.
The draft MERR Plan serves as a platform to informally work with the region prior to the 2014 Program Amendment process. Ideally, a potential approach to identifying RM&E-related components of the Program would be completed in time for the region to formally react (i.e., submit supporting/alternative/non-supporting recommendations) to these suggestions. In March 2010, the NPCC released, for public review and comment, an initial draft of the MERR Plan. The NPCC staff is currently drafting a revised set of objectives for the Program at the basin-wide and provincial-level, and continuing to work with the region’s agencies and tribes to complete a first draft of the RM&E implementation strategies for resident fish, wildlife and anadromous fish.
Development of the draft MERR Plan’s RM&E implementation strategies are further along than the revision of Program objectives. Several agencies and tribes have been collaboratively developing implementation strategies through a process coordinated and facilitated by Foundation staff and involving NPCC staff. The draft implementation strategies provide a basin-wide context for RM&E and reporting which will facilitate communicating the Basin’s strategy for implementing the Program by: 1) providing a collaborative and coherent summary of the RM&E being conducted through the Program, 2) providing a contextual background information for ISRP review of relevant projects, 3) informing Program progress assessment., 4) meeting the assessment needs of other processes (e.g., recovery plans and biological opinions) recognized by the Program. The draft MERR Plan provides guidance for the development of implementation strategies and includes recommendations for assessing how existing RM&E can provide information relative to the NPCC’s: 1) 10 draft management questions, 2) HLIs, 3) Program biological objectives, 4) Program performance standards (as they become available), 5) MERR Plan’s prioritization scheme, and 6) MERR Plan research and monitoring approaches. As informal strategies, the NPCC does not expect any of the regional partners to formally adopt these strategies.
The implementation strategies should be developed by regional partners, and aim to integrate other regional products, as appropriate, to provide a holistic understanding of the status of RM&E activities in the Columbia River Basin. This includes incorporating, as appropriate, the content of RM&E synthesis, such as for lamprey and sturgeon, called for by the NPCC’s RM&E and AP+ Project Category Review process during 2010-2011.
Currently, the implementation strategies are at various stages of development. The stage of development for the wildlife and resident fish strategies are is described below:
Wildlife Implementation Strategy
Since 2009, many of the agencies and tribes have been working on the framework for the draft Wildlife Monitoring Implementation Strategy (WMIS). Identifying relevant HLIs for wildlife, within the context of the NPCC’s Program, has been a challenge and will require continued discussion and coordination. The WMIS will continue to be updated and refined to include additional HLIs (e.g., Ecosystem Health) as they are adopted by the NPCC. To provide contextual background for wildlife data management projects, a preliminary draft is available for the ISRP review of data management projects (Wildlife Focus Workgroup 2011).
Resident Fish Implementation Strategies
Since 2010, agencies and tribes from throughout the Columbia River Basin have been developing implementation strategies for resident fish species (i.e., white sturgeon, bull trout, burbot, kokanee, cutthroat trout, redband-rainbow trout, largemouth bass, and mussels) that were identified as “focal” in subbasin plans. To complete the implementation strategies, the agencies and tribes established a three-phase process. In Phase I, which is now complete, common metrics were identified and RM&E efforts providing data, relative to the metrics were compiled. This compilation is organized by focal species/subbasin/province, existing RM&E information. During Phase II which is scheduled to begin in December 2011, resident fish managers and researchers will collaborate to develop comprehensive RME implementation strategies, across provinces, for each focal species. Beginning in April 2012, managers will begin Phase III, which will consist of working to develop a protocol for data management, sharing, and reporting.
Next Steps for Wildlife and Resident Fish Implementation Strategies
As the implementation strategies are developed and provided to the NPCC for inclusion under the MERR Plan, it is expected that the NPCC will validate the information by: 1) informing the Fish and Wildlife Committee and the NPCC on the status of the draft implementation strategy being developed by the region, 2) work with relevant project proponents to give them opportunities to comment and contribute to the draft strategy and having all comments and concerns addressed as appropriate, 3) seeking informal ISAB and ISRP review and comment on the draft strategy, either in advance of or concurrently with a related project review process as preferred by the ISRP and ISAB, and 4) posting on the NPCC website the draft strategy, or sub-component, that has substantial support by the region as being a useful coordinated implementation strategy. Subsequent to this process, revisions will be made to address any comments received. During the 2014 Program Amendment process the region, including agencies and tribes, may consider submitting the strategies as a recommendation to NPCC.
Foundation Support of the draft MERP Plan
Per the draft MERR Plan, implementation strategies are to be produced by tribal, state, and federal fish and wildlife managers as well as by entities involved in coordinating research, monitoring, and evaluation. The NPCC has encouraged a collaborative process involving the fish and wildlife managers.
Since 2009 the Foundation staff, through this project, has been assisting the NPCC and BPA with coordination and facilitation efforts to develop the implementation strategies. Currently, Foundation staff continues to collaborate with the NPCC and BPA by providing coordination and facilitation services during the development and continued maintenance of the Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS), draft Resident Fish Implementation Strategies, draft WMIS, draft Lamprey Monitoring Strategy, and the Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy for Salmon and Steelhead.
The approaches that have been used to develop the implementation strategies have varied depending on the topic and species. For example, the ASMS, which relates to Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Parameters, habitat effectiveness, and hatchery effectiveness for anadromous salmon and steelhead, was developed through a series of sub-regional and regional workshops. Those workshops carried forward in the development of the basin-wide data sharing strategy that followed (Coordinated Assessments Project). Efforts to complete the resident fish and wildlife implementation strategies have been coordinated and facilitated by Foundation staff in collaboration with NPCC staff while, working closely with the various focus workgroups and stakeholders (primarily UCUT staff for the upper Columbia resident fish strategies).
Because the implementation strategies are intended to be living documents (NPCC 2010-17), the NPCC expects that the implementation strategies will be updated as information becomes available. The NPCC suggested that the implementation strategies be updated on an annual basis to facilitate what is learned to improve Program implementation. The NPCC’s has proposed approach to updating the implementation strategies, on an annual basis, will require a continuation of the coordination that was essential for developing the initial documents.
Coordinating the Reporting of High Level Indicators and Fish and Wildlife Program Indicators
The NPCC adopted three HLIs (i.e., abundance of fish and wildlife, hydrosystem survival and passage, and NPCC actions) for reporting Program progress to Congress (See: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/hli/Default.htm). In adopting the HLIs, the NPCC understood that managing and reporting the data necessary to support those indicators would be needed. They did not intend to fund additional projects to support that work, and therefore would rely on existing projects currently managing the data necessary for consistent, reliable, and up-to-date indicators. Subsequently, the NPCC recommended that the Foundation’s Status of the Resources (SOTR) Project include the Fish and Wildlife Program Indicators in its data mining and compiling efforts for the SOTR website and annual report. (See: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/hli/2009_10.htm). The importance of the SOTR Project, from data coordination and sharing perspective, is also highlighted in the Draft MERR Plan (NPCC 2010-17, Page 27 and 37).
An important function of regional coordination is to provide direction to the regional data management projects. History has shown that regional data management projects need oversight and guidance from the biologists that provide data into the data sharing systems, and extract data from the systems, in order to adequately support reporting useful HLIs that support regional decision-making. Through the Coordinated Assessments Project and during the development of the WMIS, the linkage between data users, data providers, and the data management projects themselves was emphasized and both workgroups concluded that ongoing coordination was mandatory to provide successful data management and sharing into the future.
Coordinating Program Amendments
The NPCC has announced that they intend to update the Program in 2014. The Act envisions a participatory process that depends on the expertise of the fish and wildlife managers to identify measures necessary for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. In 2008, 17 fish and wildlife agencies and tribes were able to coordinate their amendment recommendations and submit a unified set of measures (CBFWA 2008a) for the NPCC’s consideration. The Program requires active participation by individual agencies and tribes in it planning, implementation, and evaluation to ensure goals and objectives, and other Program measures are effectively integrated with the management programs of each fish and wildlife agency and tribe and that the policy and technical basis for regional decision-making is consistent with those programs. As coordinating entities, it is the responsibility of agencies and Tribes to ensure their policy and technical representatives dedicate time and effort, as necessary, to ensure the Program is integrated with their management programs and is designed, implemented, and evaluated so that the anticipated benefits accrue to fish and wildlife.
The focus workgroups identified in this proposal will provide the support and network to encourage consistent recommendations by the agencies and tribes. It will benefit the NPCC, and the region, if the agencies and tribes can communicate their recommended measures in a manner that integrates their needs, rather than providing 21 disparate recommendations that must be reconciled by the NPCC.
Proposed Organization of Ongoing Focus Workgroups (FY2013-2015)
Beginning in FY2012, the CBFWA Members will no longer provide the sole funding to support regional coordination activities that operate outside of the confines of the CBFWA Charter. This has led to a change in how the Foundation will provide support services to the Members and outside entities. While the Foundation staff will continue to facilitate CBFWA (Objective 7), the Foundation staff will also facilitate six focus workgroups that provide the capability for BPA, NPCC and all the fish and wildlife managers to establish and maintain a central staff to facilitate regional technical forums that were historically funded through CBFWA (Figure PS1). The proposal has been developed in a manner that allows each individual objective to be funded separately (Table PS1).
Figure PS1. Focus workgroups coordinated and facilitated by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
http://www.cbfwa.org/files/org%20chart.png
http://www.cbfwa.org/files/lineitembudgetbyobjective.png
Table PS1. Line item budget for each objective proposed for facilitation by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Background and Justification for Objective 1: Status of the Resources Report
The NPCC’s 2000 Program recommended that data should be collected in a standard format and that “the Council will initiate a process for establishing an Internet-based system for the efficient dissemination of data for the Columbia Basin.” (NPCC 2000-19). In 2004, the NPCC recommended to the BPA, to fund the CBFWA Annual Work Plan proposal including an effort to compile a website and annual report on the status and trends of fish and wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin. Prior to the completion of subbasin plans, the ISRP suggested there “is the need for readily accessible data on numbers of adults returning to the subbasin (i.e., escapement estimates)" (ISRP 2000). Subsequently, the ISRP recommended “that Council and BPA ensure that data generated by public funds is readily available through publicly accessible websites" (ISRP 2005). Following the completion of the subbasin plans, the ISAB suggested that “a process to compile and coordinate data for the Columbia Basin is an obvious need" (ISAB 2006).
Following the completion of the subbasin plans, the Foundation staff began to coordinate and implement the SOTR Project utilizing a uniform basin-wide design to track the status of fish and wildlife populations throughout the Columbia River Basin. To be successful, staff initiated a two-step process: 1) coordinate with data generators (agencies and Tribes), and 2) coordinate with data user groups (NPCC, BPA, NOAA, and others). During 2005, Foundation staff coordinated with the fish and wildlife managers, NPCC, and BPA, to design a process for a continuous data inventory/reporting exercise that would make data on numbers of fish and wildlife readily available through the publicly-accessible SOTR website and reported in an annual report. From December 2005-May 2006, the Foundation staff met with the NPCC, BPA, StreamNet, and other organizations to ensure the: 1) SOTR Project was not duplicative but instead complimentary, 2) appropriate data were included in the inventory, and 3) reporting mechanisms would be useful to interested entities. The entities decided that the SOTR would not be responsible for collecting or analyzing data but would provide the following services: 1) conduct data inventories (i.e., mine and compile), identify data gaps, and report them to the region, 2) ensure data quality, 3) establish and maintain a publicly accessible website for policy-makers, technical experts and the general public, and 4) prepare an annual report designed to inform policy-makers and the general public.
In 2009, the CBFWA Members recognized the need for an integrated report on the status of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the Columbia River Basin relative to the goals and objectives defined in the NPCC’s Program. The tribes and agencies intended to consolidate this information to support multiple processes and programs affecting fish and wildlife. Therefore, the Members directed Foundation staff to maintain the SOTR website and annually prepare a written report summarizing the current information provided on the website (CBFWA FY2010 Workplan).
In 2010, Foundation staff updated the SOTR website in numerous ways. An option has been added to navigate the website according to the NOAA Fisheries hierarchical organization for salmon and steelhead (i.e., ESU/DPS/MPG/Population). All data can now be summarized in that format to support ESA review and discussions. Hatchery and harvest data have also been updated and enhanced. For the remainder of the FY2010 CBFWA contract and FY2011, a wildlife section was added and refined based on results and information gathered from the Wildlife Crediting Forum. In addition, similar to the anadromous fish ESU/DPS section, a bull trout DPS/Recovery Unit/Core/Population section is currently being developed with assistance being provided by the USFWS. An example of the section is currently available for review and comments at: http://sotr.cbfwa.org/DPS_GeneralDescriptionbull.cfm?mnu=ESU. Updates for status, trends, harvest, high level indicators, limiting factors, and hatchery production occur every four months.
Background and Justification for Objective 2-6: Focus Workgroups to Facilitate Technical-Level Regional Coordination
Following is an excerpt from the NPCC’s RM&E/AP Project Review, Programmatic Issue #11 (http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/budget/2010/rmeap/2011_06decision.pdf)
Issue: What are known as “regional coordination” projects will be reviewed as a category after the RME/AP review. But this review has a highlighted a set of coordination issues under the Fish and Wildlife Program that could use focused attention. For one thing, the ISRP often noted a significant lack of necessary coordination among projects aimed at the same end, often compounded by a lack of a strategic plan tying together the work. This includes projects involving ocean research, the projects aimed at estuary habitat improvements and the monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness in the estuary, the projects making up the program’s effort at assessing and improving conditions for lamprey, the various predation projects, and the monitoring and evaluation of conservation enforcement activities. Other areas within the monitoring and evaluation and artificial production activities exhibit extensive and necessary efforts at coordination (e.g., the habitat effectiveness work), involving personnel from federal, state, tribal and other entities. And yet little or none of this coordination takes place under the umbrella of or involves the coordination elements of the entities funded under the “regional coordination” projects. These factors illustrate in high relief the Fish and Wildlife Program’s recognition that coordination efforts and funding should be focused through a set of functional activities that need coordination, and not necessarily on the basis of entities desiring coordination funding.
As noted in many of the programmatic issues above, the ISRP identified a range of topic areas that suffered from a lack of coordination in a number of ways, and the Panel often recommended a similar set of solutions intended to increase coordinated efficiencies and effectiveness. This includes developing coordinated synthesis reports, sharing data and information through scientific papers and science/policy forums, holding regular workshops focused on specific species, methods, or geographic areas, and on several topics, the drafting of basin-wide management plans.
Staff recommendation: The staff concurs with many of the recommendations the ISRP made for increased coordination. As a result, the Council has seen and will see staff recommendations that address these needs on (1) a project-specific basis; (2) through programmatic recommendations; (3) as a follow-up item to consider in the future (e.g. holding a technical forum on a particular topic in the next year or two).
In addition, during the upcoming category review of regional coordination, the staff will extract the coordination components from the research, monitoring and evaluation and artificial production projects (and other functional projects, such as habitat activities) to help bring about a consistent review of all coordination activities under the Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council will be closely guided in this review by the provision on Program Coordination in the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Section VIII(F). The Council will also take a careful look at the regional coordination projects, to see how well they line up with the coordination needs of the program. As the Council and Bonneville review the regional coordination projects, we may find it appropriate to contract with the recipients of regional coordination funding to take on specific tasks identified in this review to increase basin-wide understanding of our collective work and accomplishments for fish and wildlife.
The Foundation’s project addresses many of the concerns expressed by NPCC in the excerpt provided above.
Following are excerpts from the CBFWA FY2011 Work Plan which support the continuation of the focus workgroups.
In 2009, the CBFWA Members recognized the role the organization can play in delivering useful technical, science-based products associated with protection, mitigation and enhancement of the Columbia Basin’s anadromous and resident fish, and wildlife. The CBFWA’s role includes participation in regional efforts to establish and apply appropriate standards, measuring techniques, and metrics to provide status assessments. Therefore, the Members directed Foundation staff to participate in and support ongoing assessments of the status of the species and implementation of strategies and actions to help determine if protection, mitigation, and enhancement efforts are successful in the Columbia River Basin.
Five steps towards achieving basinwide assessments:
1) High Level Indicators – Identify basinwide or regional metrics for status and trends of fish and wildlife populations or their surrogates that can assist with regional decision-making. These metrics will be used to establish priorities for data collection and reporting in order to evaluate success of program implementation.
2) Monitoring strategy – Identify basin-wide priorities for data collection and coordinate monitoring activities among the tribes and fish and wildlife agencies. Set priorities for BPA funding and create lists for alternate funding (e.g., NOAA, individual sovereign, etc.) to ensure adequate monitoring for all interest groups.
3) Coordinated Assessment – Identify the priority data for sharing among co-managers and with regional decision-makers. This includes what information should be shared along with specific metrics and in what format and structure data should be shared. The coordinated assessments support efficiency in data sharing.
4) Data management – Establish the support and infrastructure for data sharing partners to ensure data is available for access by appropriate user groups.
5) Reporting – Agree upon common reporting formats and use of data to support evaluations at all levels of program implementation.
Examples of deliverables for FY 2010 and FY 2011 focus workgroups included:
Salmon and Steelhead:
Building off the monitoring strategy developed during the Skamania workshops, the anadromous fish managers developed the Coordinated Assessments Work Plan (CBFWA, PNAMP and StreamNet 2010, 2011b and c). The work plan identifies steps that will lead to basin-wide priorities for data management funding (both through BPA and through tribal and individual agency investments in infrastructure). The first draft of a data sharing strategy was completed in November 2011 (CBFWA, PNAMP, and StreamNet 2011a), and by the summer of 2012 a draft Data Exchange Template will be available for use in sharing data to support VSP parameters. This effort will assist in setting priorities for BPA data management funding for the next five years through the NPCC’s RM&E Categorical Review.
The FY 2011 CBFWA contract continued the expansion of the Data Exchange Template to include additional VSP parameters, as well as, habitat effectiveness and hatchery effectiveness data. Reporting has continued through the SOTR.
Lamprey:
In 2011, the LTWG reviewed and commented on the USFWS Lamprey Monitoring Framework. The framework was modified to support the NPCC’s MERR Plan. By the Spring of 2012, the Lamprey Monitoring Strategy will be ready to submit for ISRP review and support the NPCC’s geographic reviews.
Under the current CBFWA contract, the LTWG is working on several technical papers including the lamprey translocation paper and lamprey passage standards.
Fish Screen Oversight Committee:
The FSOC conducts a biannual workshop and training seminar for construction and operation of fish screens. The FSOC has been active in planning the seminar, as well as sharing information for development of lamprey passage standards.
White Sturgeon:
In 2010 and 2011, the white sturgeon subcommittee of the Resident Fish Advisory Committee developed a set of draft implementation strategies for populations above Bonneville Dam to assist the ISRP in their review of proposals submitted for consideration in the NPCC’s RM&E and resident Fish categorical reviews. Phase II will continue with the development of implementation strategies for populations below Bonneville Dam and in the mid-Columbia. During 2012, the group anticipates developing common monitoring protocols to be included in the monitoring strategy that will be submitted to NPCC as well as data sharing protocols.
Bull Trout:
Working with the USFWS, the bull trout subcommittee of the Resident Fish Advisory Committee has discussed the development of an implementation strategy for bull trout. This effort will build off the effort of the USFWS’s Bull Trout Research Monitoring, Evaluation Group and develop a basin-wide strategy for reporting and sharing data. It is anticipated that this effort will take a couple of years. The initial focus will be on recovery units for which BPA provides mitigation funds. The purpose of initially focusing on these recovery units first is so that implementation strategies, associated with existing bull trout projects, will be available for the ISRP to reference during their review of proposals submitted through the Resident Fish Categorical Review.
Other Trout:
During 2011, resident fish managers completed Phase I of the implementation strategies for trout spp. (e.g., rainbow/redband trout, cutthroat trout etc.). The initial focus was on identifying common metrics and compiling information at the subbasin- and province-scale. Efforts were focused on those locations for which BPA provides mitigation funds. The purpose of initially focusing on these subbasins was so that the implementation strategies would be available for the ISRP to reference during their review of proposals submitted during the Resident Fish Categorical Review.
Reservoir Fish:
In 2011, resident fish managers in the blocked areas completed Phase I of the implementation strategies for reservoir fisheries. The initial focus was on identifying common metrics and compiling information at the subbasin- and province-scale. Efforts were focused on those locations for which BPA provides mitigation funds.
Looking forward, the resident fish managers will focus on developing basin-wide implementation strategies (Phase II) as well as developing common data sharing and reporting standards to support basin-wide evaluations of the Program’s mitigation efforts (Phase III).
Resident Fish Construction and Operational Losses:
The Resident Fish Advisory Committee continued their work on developing methodologies for evaluating resident fish losses due to construction and inundation of the hydropower system. The Council has indicated that they will be soliciting input for development of a methodology to include in the Program.
Wildlife:
The Wildlife Advisory Committee developed the draft WMIS to support the NPCC’s MERR Plan (Wildlife Focus Workgroup 2011). The WMIS was being developed on the assumption that additional funding for biological monitoring of wildlife projects is highly unlikely, and that high level indicators should be developed that can be supported by existing monitoring efforts within each of the individual projects or entities
Wildlife Management Plans:
The wildlife managers have been working with BPA to develop a common land management plan template. The management plan template will fit into a larger land acquisition handbook being developed by BPA. The Foundation staff continues to coordinate and facilitate wildlife manager involvement in the development of improved, standardized business practices for wildlife projects funded through BPA.
Regional HEP Team:
The Regional HEP Team is funded through a separate contract with BPA, but supervised by Foundation staff and the wildlife focus workgroup. The HEP Team contract extends through 2014.
2014 Program Amendments:
At the November 2011 NPCC F&W Committee meeting, the NPCC staff identified the need to begin preparations for amendments to the 2009 Program beginning in 2013 or sooner (http://www.nwcouncil.org/meeting.asp?id=53). The NPCC staff identified the following list of issues that may be addressed prior to the call for amendments: 1) biological objectives, 2) subbasin plans, 3) habitat restoration and effectiveness, 4) supplementation, 5) predation, 6) integration of ISAB Food Web report, and 7) updating the NPCC’s Research Plan.
Background and Justification for Objective 7: CBFWA
It is anticipated that CBFWA membership in FY13-15 will consist of representatives from the Burns-Paiute Tribe (BPT), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation (CTUIR), Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWSR), Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (FMPST), Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (KTOI), Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), NOAA Fisheries, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe (SBT), Shoshone-Paiute Tribe (SPT), USFWS, and the Yakima Nation (YIN).
CBFWA FY2010-2011 Activities:
In 2009, the CBFWA Members revised how they conduct business under the CBFWA charter to focus on deliverables. For contract year 2010 (i.e., April 2010 through March 2011), the CBFWA Members adopted the following Policy Directives, and continue to implement them in 2011, committing each member’s staff and directing CBFWA staff to:
1. Participate in and support ongoing assessments of the status of the species and implementation of strategies and actions to help determine if protection, mitigation, and enhancement efforts are successful in the Columbia River Basin
2. Maintain the SOTR Project’s website and annually prepare a written report summarizing the current information provided on the website
3. Monitor and report on activities of key regional forums where policies, programs, and actions that affect fish and wildlife are planned and implemented
The CBFWA Members recognize the efficiency of a shared central staff with policy and technical expertise to assist Members with issues related to fish and wildlife management in the Columbia River Basin. Therefore, the Members directed Foundation staff to monitor and report on activities of key regional forums where policies, programs, and actions that affect fish and wildlife are planned and implemented. The Members may designate staff to participate in these forums, or to communicate/represent a consensus position by the Members in one or more of the forums.
Foundation staff has monitored the activities of the NPCC, BPA, PNAMP, StreamNet, Washington Monitoring Forum, Columbia River Tribes’ discussions regarding the Columbia River Treaty, and others. Staff will continue to monitor forums that impact fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.
CBFWA 2012 and beyond:
The proposed work plan and mechanisms for implementing the policy directives will significantly change how CBFWA operates in FY2012 and beyond. Policy Directives 1 and 2 will be pursued independently through the Foundation by providing the capability for BPA, NPCC, and all the fish and wildlife managers (CBFWA Members and non-Members) to establish and maintain a central staff to facilitate regional technical forums that were historically funded through CBFWA (Objectives 1-6 of this proposal). If individual co-managers or BPA and Council agree to provide funding for the technical committees or the SOTR Project, those functions will be implemented through the Foundation separate from the CBFWA facilitation function.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in
Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?
