[6] Most New F&W Proposals Flunk First Science Review
Ten of the first 11 new projects that have been developed from the Fish Accord process need more work before their scientific merit can be judged, according to a Dec. 12 memo from the Independent Scientific Review Panel, the group that reviews projects for the BPA-funded fish and wildlife program.
The panel said, "A few project sponsors will likely be able to respond to our comments quickly in a response memo, but most projects need significant revision."
The proposals from two tribes and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission are the first to be offered to the panel for review out of nearly 200 projects that BPA has agreed to fund, in return for most tribes' and states' support of the latest hydro BiOp, which has been challenged by environmental and fishing groups, the state of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe.
The Accord proposals are on a fast track review, but it may take some time before their projects are OK'd by the science panel, which plays an important role in the process used by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to develop proposal recommendations for BPA funding.
However, the Accord agreement states that projects developed in that process will be funded by BPA whether or not the Council recommends them, as long as the parties explain their reasons for bypassing the Council.
The tribes, in comments recently submitted in regard to the draft F&W program now being finalized by the Power Council, said their Accord projects did not need scientific review. However, a guidance document has been developed to help parties wade through the process (see NW Fishletter 255).
Just how that will work out is yet to be seen, but it was reported that BPA and Council staffers and tribal representatives were slated to meet this Friday to sort out the ISRP situation.
BPA spokesman Scott Sims told NW Fishletter that it's not unusual for the ISRP to ask for more information when new projects are introduced. He said his agency and the various sponsors are mapping out a strategy to respond to the ISRP comments.
"We're in a new era with these Accords and we're going to be on a learning curve," Sims said. He called the ISRP response an "initial dialog" that will continue to improve the proposals. He said they will undergo a joint internal review before they are submitted for ISRP review.
The Umatilla, Warm Springs, Shoshone-Bannock, Yakama, and Colville Tribes along with the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the states of Montana, Idaho and Washington all have millions of dollars in future fish and wildlife proposals riding on this process.
However, the fast track could bog down because it may take extra time to satisfy the panel. They pointed out that some of these initial proposals "need to be completely reworked to meet the criteria for scientific adequacy."
The panel said the absence of the administrative form "hindered" their review. "Without a budget, reviewers lacked valuable information on the sequence and duration of project implementation, which gives an indication of the logical progression of the project and the ability of the sponsor to complete the project. The ISRP recommends that future Accord projects include a budget linked to work elements and time."
The ISRP also found some of the projects submitted "significantly overlap, geographically and topically."
They found only one project that met their scientific review criteria, a proposal to conduct a genetic assessment of Columbia River stocks from the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Two other proposals from CRITFC didn't pass muster, along with six projects from the Warm Springs Tribes, and a project to recondition steelhead kelts (fish that spawn more than once) proposed by the Yakama Tribes.
But the ISRP said it was committed to working with BPA, the Council and project sponsors to ensure the projects are "technically sound, thoroughly justified, well-documented from their initiation, and improved through our review."
Council staffers have reviewed the CRITFC genetic assessment project for possible action by NPCC members at next week's meeting. They said the Council could either recommend it for implementation as is, or defer action on it until a regional approach to monitoring, evaluation, research and reporting, now being developed, is completed. Staffers said "changes in scope and intent of this project may be required" when the regional strategy is implemented.
The staff review said the CRITFC study could contribute to the management of salmonid stocks by improving stock composition accuracy and allow for "timely" fish management, but it is also very expensive, costing more than $9 million from 2008 to 2017.
They advised the Council to proceed "cautiously" with a recommendation regarding full implementation of this project until "a more complete understanding" regarding the new monitoring and evaluation approach is defined and how the CRITFC proposal "would fit within this framework." -B. R.
The following links were mentioned in this story:
Subscriptions and Feedback
Subscribe to the Fishletter notification e-mail list.
Send e-mail comments to the editor.
THE ARCHIVE :: Previous NW Fishletter issues and supporting documents.
NW Fishletter is produced by Energy NewsData.
Publisher: Cyrus Noë, Editor: Bill Rudolph
Phone: (206) 285-4848 Fax: (206) 281-8035
