1. Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program
Proposal for Mainstem/Systemwide Province
ISRP Review Meeting
July 16, 2002; Portland, Oregon
CBFWA, NMFS, USFWS,
ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, MDFWP, CRITFC, FPC
presented by David Marmorek, ESSA Technologies

2. Outline Rationale for the project Proposed project organization
Addressing possible concerns with collaboration
Specific objectives
Proposed approaches
Significance to regional programs / proposed projects

3. Rationale: Overall questions that M & E should address
Tier 1. What are spatial distributions of stocks in the Columbia River Basin? How are these distributions changing over time? How do they relate to overall ecosystem status?
Tier 2. What are trends in stock abundance, condition and survival over whole life cycle, and at different life history stages? How do these relate to habitat and climate?
Tier 3. How do stock and habitat indicators respond to specific classes of management actions?
What improvements in M & E are needed to give more reliable answers to these questions?

4. The project is organized to provide the collaborative base that’s essential for M & E
sponsored by the key entities that conduct fish monitoring programs in the Columbia Basin:
CBFWA
NMFS
4 state fish agencies: ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, MDFWP
USFWS
CRITFC
the Fish Passage Center
closely involves federal, tribal and coordinating agencies
provides action agencies with the means to accomplish what they need to do under Biological Opinions

5. Proposed Project Team Organization
¼ly Work Plans
Inter-agencyWork Groups

6. Addressing possible concerns with a collaborative approach to M&E
Collaboration can be “inefficient”.
Without collaborative process, M&E is far less efficient:
more difficult for NMFS and USFWS to get data / metadata
harder to influence monitoring done by States, Tribes, FPC
less consistency in methods, designs; duplication of efforts
Project will have strict monitoring of deliverables by CBFWA, milestone based payments

7. Addressing concerns (cont’d - 2)
Different agencies have different M&E objectives
there are many common M&E objectives (e.g. salmon, assessing all H’s) as well as differing ones (e.g. bull trout)
develop consistent approaches for common objectives, complementary approaches for differing objectives, identify / resolve overlaps amongst programs

8. Addressing concerns (cont’d - 3)
Science by multi-agency Committee doesn’t work.
overall direction by small Core Group (8 people); groundwork for collaboration already established through this proposal
rigorous design done by small, efficient work groups
review done by larger group to get buy-in, do implementation
larger buy-in by state agencies has been essential for other successful M&E efforts (e.g. EMAP)

9. Addressing concerns (cont’d - 4)
Will Core Group always reach consensus?
Certainly not! Consensus not required to make incremental progress on M&E. Can explore competing M&E approaches with pilot projects / analyses, rigorous inter-comparisons.
Majority decision making of Core Group to ensure efficiency
Funding decisions ultimately up to NWPPC and BPA.

10. Specific Objectives
serve M&E needs of NMFS & USFWS (Biological Opinions, Recovery Plans), NWPPC Fish & Wildlife Program
document, integrate, make available existing monitoring data (salmon, steelhead, bull trout, other species);
critically assess strengths and weaknesses of these data for answering key questions (stock status and responses to management actions);
design and implement improved monitoring and evaluation methods to fill information gaps, provide better answers.

11. Proposed Approach
Build on NMFS’ 3-tier structure (BIOP, Jordan et al. 2002)
Integrate / coordinate M & E activities systemwide, working collaboratively across multiple scales and objectives
Design M&E program around life histories of each species
Use future check-ins, decision points to guide M&E needs
Build on critical assessment of existing data; make useful data / metadata broadly available
Integrate with NWPPC/NMFS evolving data management
Fill data gaps in most cost-effective way, expand coverage, learn from pilot studies before broad scale implementation

12. Approach: Sequence of Activities
Future decisions, existing data
M & E review, critical needs
Results from
pilot projects
Catalog & review of M & E across 3 tiers
M & E designs to fill gaps
Systemwide M & E program
Internet -accessible data, metadata, catalogues
Pilot M & E projects / analyses implemented
Data / analysis for mainstem & sub-basin decisions

13. Potential Uses [Tiers]
Approach: Build on Existing Data and Fill Gaps
Example Datasets
Potential Uses [Tiers]
1. Intensively studied stocks; long time series
Trends in survival and abundance over life cycle [2, 3]
Fill gaps in spatial and temporal coverage
2. Existing regional surveys with synoptic presence / absence data
General indication of distribution, status trends [1, 2]
Adjust for biases or do probability-based surveys
3.Regionally representative, probability-based surveys (e.g. EMAP)
Assess future trends in distribution and abundance [1, 2, 3]
Link to other data beyond spawning / rearing life stage
Correlate with historical time series; ensure continuity

14. Smolts / sub-adults per spawner
Look at the whole life cycle!
Freshwater
Spawning / Rearing Habitat Actions
Smolts / sub-adults per spawner
Eggs
Hydro- system Actions
In-river
Transported
Harvest Management
Estuary Habitat Actions
Estuary
Figure 4.
To describe what data we have S/R Survival through hydrosystem
Ocean
Resident Fish (e.g. bull trout)
Anadromous Fish (e.g. chinook)

15. Significance to Regional Programs

16. Relationship to Existing Projects (see handout for other systemwide proposals)
Provides a coordinated mechanism for integration of separate studies, detecting gaps, avoiding duplication
Speeds implementation of NWPPC Information Study
Supports, but does not duplicate bull trout RME
Strengthens data quality for harvest stock assessment groups (e.g. U.S. v Oregon TAC)
Contract management time provided by CBFWA Coordination contract and Foundation funding
Complements and supports, but does not duplicate, ESSA’s Multi-watershed Innovative Proposal

17. We welcome your questions.

18. Time Allocation by Agency and Objective

19. ESSA ‘Multi-watershed’ Proposal (18-month Tier 3 Pilot Project)
CBFWA Systemwide, Collaborative M&E Program
Watershed restoration hypotheses worth testing in existing projects
Tier 3 Habitat Inventory Activities
Other tiers, H’s
Pilot test of selected hypotheses in selected watersheds using existing data
Determine Deficiencies in Experimental Designs / Monitoring
Simulate improvements
Improved M & E designs for Tier 3
Tiers 1 and 2
Develop improved experimental designs, monitoring protocols
Implemented M & E