1

Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program

Proposal 35033 for Mainstem/Systemwide ProvinceISRP 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

M & E O vers ight C om m ittee (~ 25 )A p p rova l, C oord in a tion

an d Im p lem en ta tion o f W ork P lan s

C BF W AP ro jec t M an ag em en t

C on trac t A d m in is tra tion

F edera l A genc iesN M F S , U S F W S

B P A , B oR , C orp s , E P A / E M A PU S G S , U S F S , N R C S

C oordina ting / S ervice A genc iesC B F W A , N P P C , F P C

{S A IC In fo M g m t}

S ta te F ish A genc iesW A , ID , O R , M T

T riba l F ish A genc iesC R ITF C

Y akam a, N ez P earce , C o lvilleR eg ion a l Trib a l R ep resen ta tives

ESSA TechnologiesTech n ica l F ac ilita tion

W ork P lan sW ork P rod u c ts

Eco LogicW ork P rod u c ts

M & E C ore G roup (8 people )D irec tion , W ork P lan n in g

NM FS, USFW S, Action Agencies, States, T ribes, NW PPC+ {F ac ilita to r, C B F W A }

Inter-agencyWork Groups

¼ly Work Plans

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

Catalog & review of M & E across 3 tiers

Systemwide M & E

program

Future decisions, existing data

M & E review, critical needs

Results frompilot projects

Internet -accessible data,

metadata, catalogues

Pilot M & E projects / analyses

implemented

Data / analysis for mainstem & sub-basin

decisions

M & E designs to

fill gaps

Approach: Sequence of Activities

13

Example Datasets Potential Uses [Tiers]

1. Intensively studied stocks; long time series

• General indication of distribution, status trends [1, 2]• Adjust for biases or do probability-based surveys

• 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

• Trends in survival and abundance over life cycle [2, 3]• Fill gaps in spatial and temporal coverage

3.Regionally representative, probability-based surveys (e.g. EMAP)

2. Existing regional surveys with synoptic presence / absence data

Approach: Build on Existing Data and Fill Gaps

14

Freshwater

Ocean

In-river Transported

Smolts / sub-adults per spawnerEggs

Estuary

Har

vest

M

anag

emen

tSpawning /

Rearing Habitat Actions

Estuary Habitat Actions

Hydro- system Actions

Look at the whole life cycle!

Resident Fish (e.g. bull trout)Anadromous Fish (e.g. chinook)

15

Significance to Regional ProgramsNWPPCFish andWildlifeProgram

provides systemwide evaluation of whether individual actions insub-basins achieve program objectives at basin / province levels

supports strategies for M & E, project standards, Internet-based datamanagement (pg. 32-33)

provides M & E required to test EDT, sub-basin plansNMFSBiOP,TRTsBPAguidelines

provides mechanism for implementing M & E recommendations inBIOP / TRT work plans

action on RPAs 180, 185-190, 191-193, 195, 198 puts pilot projects in larger scale context

BasinwideRecoveryStrategy

meets need for rigorous experimental design, coordinated M & Eeffort, regional databases (pg. 45)

USFWSBiop

ensure mainstem / systemwide bull trout M & E is coordinated withsalmon / steelhead work

action on RPAs 10.A.1 and 10.A.3LocalPrograms

provides M&E guidance down to local level of implementation (e.g.conservation districts, municipalities, HCPs)

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

# FTEs by Agency (30% cost shared)

CBFWA (0.75)Eco Logic (0.3)

ESSA (0.85)Other Tribes

(0.75)

CRITFC (1)

MDFWP (1)

WDFW (1) IDFG (1)

ODFW (1)

FPC (0.5)

USFWS (0.5)

NMFS (1.13)

Time Allocation by Agency and Objective

Time Allocation by Objective

Tier 3 M&E 25%

Tier 2 M&E 40%

Tier 1 M&E 13%

Workshops Core Group

22%

19

ESSA ‘Multi-watershed’ Proposal (18-month Tier 3 Pilot Project)

Watershed restoration hypotheses worth testing in existing projects

• Pilot test of selected hypotheses in selected watersheds using existing data

• Determine Deficiencies in Experimental Designs / Monitoring

• Simulate improvements

Develop improved experimental designs, monitoring protocols

CBFWA Systemwide, Collaborative M&E Program

Tier 3 Habitat Inventory Activities

Other tiers, H’s

Improved M & E designs for Tier 3

Implemented M & E

Tiers 1 and 2