CSMEP Goal: Improve the quality and consistency of fish monitoring data, and the methods used to evaluate these data, to answer key questions relevant.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program
Advertisements

You have been given a mission and a code. Use the code to complete the mission and you will save the world from obliteration…
Advanced Piloting Cruise Plot.
Chapter 1 The Study of Body Function Image PowerPoint
1 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Fig 2.1 Chapter 2.
By D. Fisher Geometric Transformations. Reflection, Rotation, or Translation 1.
Interior Columbia Basin TRT Draft Viability Criteria June, 2005 ESU & Population Levels.
Grande Ronde Supplementation Lostine River: Operation and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Project Number:
Annual Stock Assessment – Coded Wire Tag Program (ODFW & WDFW) BPA Project Numbers: and
Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring Paul Kucera and Dave Faurot Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management BPA Project
Implement the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration and Habitat Restoration Projects Project Lyle Kuchenbecker, Project Planner.
Investigate Re-establishing Anadromous Fish Populations Above Man-made Barriers Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Willamette Basin.
Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Project No Tara White, Shannon Jewett, Josh Hanson,
Assessment of A-run Steelhead population in the Clearwater Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
Lake Creek Chinook Salmon Performance Measures Paul Kucera and Chris Beasley Nez Perce Tribe/HDR FishPro.
Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring Project Dave Faurot Nez Perce Tribe Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Fishery Management Overview - Context Sponsored By: Colville Confederated Tribes Presented By: Stephen Smith.
1 The Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) and StreamNet NW Power & Conservation Council, Sept. 20, 2006.
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Evaluations – Salmon River Project No Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management.
Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Lower Columbia/Columbia Estuary Provinces Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
1 Fish & Wildlife Managers Program Amendment Recommendations January 17, 2008.
Frank Leonetti, Snohomish County
Business Transaction Management Software for Application Coordination 1 Business Processes and Coordination.
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Title Subtitle.
My Alphabet Book abcdefghijklm nopqrstuvwxyz.
Multiplying binomials You will have 20 seconds to answer each of the following multiplication problems. If you get hung up, go to the next problem when.
0 - 0.
DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
MULT. INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
FACTORING ax2 + bx + c Think “unfoil” Work down, Show all steps.
Addition Facts
Year 6 mental test 5 second questions
ZMQS ZMQS
Micro Focus Research 1 As far as youre aware, how does your organization plan to drive business growth over the next three years? (Respondents' first choices)
ABC Technology Project
VOORBLAD.
Summary of Recommendations: Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan Trinity River Restoration Program Preliminary Fiscal Year 2013 Science Workplan.
Squares and Square Root WALK. Solve each problem REVIEW:
© 2012 National Heart Foundation of Australia. Slide 2.
Lets play bingo!!. Calculate: MEAN Calculate: MEDIAN
Understanding Generalist Practice, 5e, Kirst-Ashman/Hull
Chapter 5 Test Review Sections 5-1 through 5-4.
GG Consulting, LLC I-SUITE. Source: TEA SHARS Frequently asked questions 2.
Preliminary Results of Management Question Survey Jim Geiselman & Jen Bayer March 16, 2006 Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP)
1 Intensively Monitored Watersheds Validation Monitoring for Salmon Habitat Restoration.
Addition 1’s to 20.
25 seconds left…...
Januar MDMDFSSMDMDFSSS
Week 1.
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
©Brooks/Cole, 2001 Chapter 12 Derived Types-- Enumerated, Structure and Union.
PSSA Preparation.
Rebecca Buchanan and John Skalski, University of Washington Gregory Mackey, Douglas County PUD Charles Snow, Washington DFW TRIBPIT: ESTIMATING SALMONID.
Traktor- og motorlære Kapitel 1 1 Kopiering forbudt.
Proposed Approach for Developing Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead Goals June 3, 2015.
Preliminary Results Progress Coordinated Assessments Reports from the Field.
BUILDING STRONG SM 1 Columbia River Salmon and Federal Columbia River Power System Rock Peters Senior Program Manager.
1 Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) June ??, 2007 DRAFT.
1 Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) Presentation to PNAMP Steering Committee August 21, 2007.
Status & Trend Monitoring Data End User Management Questions, Directives, Research & Monitoring Plans and Other Strategies 1.Federal Columbia River Estuary,
Comparison of Winter Steelhead Trap Estimates in Small Basins to Other Escapement Methods and the Representativeness of ODFW Life-Cycle Monitoring Sites.
Columbia River Basin Fish Restoration Activities ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE AND UPCOMING ISSUES Bonneville Legal Briefing – October 2015.
1 The Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP) CBFWA – Ken MacDonald ESSA Technologies Ltd. - Marc Porter State Agencies IDFG.
Articulation of Basin-wide Monitoring “Framework”
Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Strategy Workshop
Presentation transcript:

CSMEP Goal: Improve the quality and consistency of fish monitoring data, and the methods used to evaluate these data, to answer key questions relevant to major decisions in the Columbia Basin. CSMEP Survey of Monitoring Questions

Status and trends monitoring Action effectiveness monitoring: Habitat Hatchery Harvest Hydrosystem For listed salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other fishes of concern:

CSMEP Survey of Monitoring Questions

Sp/Su Chinook Fall Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Coho Bull trout Species

Sub-Pop → Population → MPG → ESU → CRB Spatial Scales

Sp/Su Chinook Fall Chinook Steelhead Sockeye Coho Bull trout Ecosystem, Population and Habitat Status Action Effectiveness for Habitat, Harvest, Hatchery, Hydrosystem Questions

Response – IDFG, S/S Chinook 1. Distribution of fishes 2. Status of fishes 3. Population size 4. Population growth rate 5. Freshwater productivity 6. Age structure 7. Hatchery fraction 8. Spawn frequency (resident fishes) 9. Life history type(s) 10. Biological condition of spawning and rearing habitat 11. Chemical water quality ofspawning and rearing habitat 12. Physical condition of spawning and rearing habitat 13. Habitat: Effectiveness of specific habitat projects on fish populations 14. Habitat: Effectiveness of multiple habitat projects on fish populations 15. Habitat: Effectiveness of particular classes of habitat projects 16. Habitat: Connections between habitat actions and population responses 17. Habitat: Effectiveness of habitat projects on habitat conditions 18. Harvest: What are pre-season and in-season estimates of run size and escapement 19. Harvest: What is the target and non-target harvest/ when will they be achieved 20. Hatcheries: Meeting harvest goals without adverse impacts 21. Hatcheries: Enhancing viability of natural populations without adverse impacts 22. Hatcheries: Conserving genetic legacy of imperiled fish 23. Hydro: Smolt-to-adult survival rates meet recovery goals 24. Hydro: Compliance with 2000 FCRPS BiOp performance standards 25. Hydro: Comparative survival for different species and groups 26. Hydro: Effect of various management actions on survival 27. Hydro: Do removable spillway weirs improve survival

ODFW UnweightedWeighted

Respondents Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Coeur d’Alene Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation Nez Perce Tribe Yakama Indian Nation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ranking of species Across agencies By each agency

Mean (unweighted) SD High SD = disagreement

Tier 1 & 2. Status / Trends Anadromous (n=8) Questions regarding broad scale status and trends rated as very important (1-7), particularly at scales of population, MPG, ESU Regional distribution Ecosystem status Abundance Population growth rate Productivity Age structure Hatchery fraction of spawners Variation in response for population and ESU scales less than sub-population and MPG scales Questions regarding habitat rated less important (10-12) Question regarding life history types (9) rated less important

Tier 1 & 2. Status / Trends Bull trout (n=10) Questions regarding broad scale status and trends rated as very important (1-6) Timing of resident species spawning (8) and life history types (9) rated important across most scales Questions regarding habitat (10-12) rated important, particularly at sub-population and population scales Population scale most important, but sub-population, MPG and ESU (DPS) scales also important Variation in response for bull trout greater than for anadromous

Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Anadromous (n=8) All questions regarding effectiveness of actions for all 4 H’s were deemed important at one or more scales Hatchery questions (20-22) were rated highly important at population, MPG, and ESU scales Habitat (13-17) questions most important at smaller (sub- population and population) scales, except for Sockeye Basin-scale becomes more important for harvest questions (18-19) Hydrosystem (23-27) questions most important at ESU scale

Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Anadromous (n=8) Importance of hydrosystem questions (23-27) showed high variability Otherwise variability was similar to that for Tier 1 and 2 questions

Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Bull trout (n=10) Habitat questions (13-17) most important at smaller (sub- population and population) scales Harvest questions (18-19) next most important Hatchery (20-22) and hydrosystem (23-27) questions were less important to most, but not all agencies Variability in rating of questions for all H’s except habitat is very high

Emerging priorities and implications Consistent importance on estimating status and trend of fish populations Variation among agencies in importance of action effectiveness monitoring reflecting diverse mandates as well as regionally varying stressors Move toward consistent basin wide approach for S&T with regionally varying M&E for action effectiveness Priorities for anadromous and resident fish species vary across agencies and questions – implies different monitoring designs