BPA Expectations for Regionally Coordinated RM&E Programs Jim Geiselman – BPA BPA Expectations on the Development of Standard Protocols through PNAMP Discuss the role of F&W managers and tribes in the review and conduct of future RME efforts. Facilitate transition from project specific monitoring to more standardized and programmatic level monitoring that can be combined to make inferences at different scales.

BPA Expectations for Regionally Coordinated RM&E Programs Key Management Drivers for RM&E Expectations for Coordinated, Cost Shared RM&E Programs {Common Protocols} Building a Network of RM&E Plans Potential Changes to the F&W Program Identify Briefly BPA’s Key Management Questions that drive our RME needs Our needs and expectations for coordinated and cost shared RM&E efforts and how this is dependent on common protocols Opportunities current processes for developing standardized approaches and building a network of monitoring programs Finally, some potential changes that this coordination and standardization will have on the F&W Program Implementation

High Level Management Questions Are we meeting performance objectives for fish and wildlife? Are there performance problems and how can we fix them? How should we allocate limited funding? Are we the Meeting Biological and Programmatic Performance Objectives Established within the FCRPS BiOp, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, and ESA Recovery Plans? What factors are limiting our ability to achieve performance standards or objectives? What mitigation actions are most effective at addressing the limiting factors? How should we allocate our limited integrated Fish and Wildlife Program funding to most effectively achieve defined performance standards and objectives and implement needed RM&E in concert with other regional mitigation and RM&E programs with common objectives?

RME Needs Population Abundance and Distribution Adult and Juvenile Survivals Habitat Limiting Factors Action Effectiveness Research Critical Uncertainties Research Program Implementation Monitoring Data Management

Shared Regional RM&E Needs Columbia Basin F&W Program Federal, State and Tribal ESA Requirements of BiOps and Recovery Plans Federal, State and Tribal Resource Management Programs FERC Hydro re-licensing requirements NGO Programs

RME Needs Exceed Funding Capabilities of Any One Agency                                      Washington State’s Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy identified the need for about $80 million per year for watershed health and salmon recovery monitoring BPA currently spends approximately 30 to 40 percent (with goal reducing to 25 percent) of the F&W Program –With AFEP funding this adds up to over $80 million per year on RM&E - Many Gaps Remaining

Developing Distributed Responsibilities, Cost Sharing Federal Caucus Salmon Recovery Strategy Federal Caucus RM&E Committee PNAMP coordination F&W Program Project Solicitation MOUs on distribution of RM&E responsibilities and commitments

Coordination and Standard Protocols Universal Monitoring Design Template More Standardized Sampling Designs Data Collection Protocols and Field Manuals Standard Programmatic Level Project Tracking and Performance Protocols Data Recording, archiving and access protocols

Planning and Process Opportunities F&W Program Solicitation, Prioritization, and Contract SOWs Recovery Plans and RM&E Framework PCSRF Program Implementation AFEP Program Solicitation and Selection PNAMP Work Plans and Workgroups CSMEP Design Templates Federal RM&E Plan(s), Workgroups, Pilot Projects NED Workgroups

Potential Changes to F&W Program All RM&E projects - One solicitation process with set proportion of budget Prioritization and solicitations on RM&E supporting key management questions More programmatic level monitoring and less project specific monitoring Contractual requirements for standardized monitoring designs, sampling methods, and data recording and access