1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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?

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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