1

Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP)

June ??, 2007

DRAFT

2

The Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP)

CBFWAESSA Technologies Ltd.

State AgenciesIDFGODFWWDFW

Federal AgenciesNOAAUSFWSEPADFO

Tribal AgenciesCRITFCNez Perce TribeColville TribesYakama NationUmatilla Tribes

ConsultantsEco LogicalQuantitative ConsultantsPERWEST

3

Background

Develop Collaborative Regional M&E Program

Consistent with:

• 2000 FCRPS BiOp• Fish and Wildlife Program• Subbasin planning• Recovery Planning

4

Funding Decision

• Council recommended funding FY07-FY08

FY09 funding contingent upon review

• BPA funded FY07, ½ funding FY08

“reflects a transition to project closure in FY08”

5

Concerns

• Project scheduled to terminate prior to review as recommended

• Decision affects state and tribal abilities to– coordinate in regional context – provide input to develop a regional M&E program

6

• Poor cooperation among M&E entities;• Lack of common approaches/designs for collection

of monitoring data;• Poor cataloguing and evaluation of existing

monitoring efforts;• Different entities and programs operate at different

spatial and temporal scales;• Insufficient technical feedback to policy makers;• Unspecified levels of acceptable uncertainty around

key management decisions

Challenges in developing collaborative M&E:

7

Steps CSMEP has taken to resolve challenges:

• Build collaboration across agencies

• Focus systematically on key decisions of federal, state, tribal, intergovernmental entities (S&T; 4 H’s)

• Inventory and assess adequacy of existing fish monitoring data (cost, accuracy, precision) for these decisions

• Design and evaluate alternative M&E methods that build on strengths & overcome weaknesses of existing data, integrate

• Implement and evaluate pilot M&E approaches

8

CSMEP’s Collaborative Structure

Representatives from participating entities plan CSMEP workgroup activities/products and evaluate progress towards CSMEP objectives

9

CSMEP Pilot for Snake Basin; learn from this and extend to other regions

10

CSMEP Products to Date

• Systematic inventory/evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of current subbasin monitoring data for Chinook and steelhead

• Monitoring designs for using PIT-tags to address multiple S&T, 4 H questions

• Analysis of the cumulative benefit of habitat restoration actions on salmon survival

• Novel multi-year evaluation methods for assessing smolt to adult return rates at multiple spatial scales

• Design alternatives for watershed-scale habitat effectiveness monitoring in the Lemhi (pilot)

11

CSMEP Products in Progress

• SOTR Data Quality Guide• High, Medium and Low M&E design templates and recommendations

for integration – Snake Basin pilot• Recommendations for hybrid fish population abundance designs

(EMAP + index sites)• Hatchery effectiveness monitoring designs for evaluating straying and

relative productivity• Models to assess errors in viability assessments using TRT criteria

and different levels of monitoring• Models to evaluate ability to test SAR & TIR hypotheses• Improved harvest impact models assessing “Take”• Database to calculate costs of integrated S/T and 4H monitoring

designs • Recommendations for a Regional Monitoring Framework

12

CSMEP Impact on Basin Entities

WDFW• Improved monitoring designs for winter steelhead and Chinook,

incorporating variance estimates from MRC and increased sampling to detect CWT strays from hatcheries

IDFG• Retooling of natural production monitoring to integrate M&E across

fish species and develop probabilistic sampling approaches; assist habitat effectiveness M&E designs

ODFW• Development of viability assessments for Mid-Columbia Steelhead

Recovery Plan; development of a cost-effective, statistically robust steelhead monitoring program

13

CSMEP Impact on Basin Entities

Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs)• CSMEP models are helping to assess consequences of

different M&E strategies on accuracy of viability assessments

US vs. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)• CSMEP analyses are being used to review plans for

monitoring mortality rates of listed species caught in various fisheries

US Army Corps of Engineers• CSMEP’s adapted DQO process is being used to scope

information needs for monitoring fall Chinook survival through the hydrosystem

14

CSMEP provides a collaborative forum to:

• Assess strengths and weaknesses of existing data for making decisions

• Evaluate cost trade-offs of different M & E approaches• Promote integration of M&E for Status & Trends

with action effectiveness monitoring (Habitat, Harvest, Hydro and Hatcheries)

• Integrate across spatial scales (project, population, subbasin, Province, ESU, Basin) and species

• Provide guidance on how to make M&E more cost-effective and reliable

15

Future of CSMEP?

• Collaborative monitoring will become increasingly important as recovery plans are implemented

• Coordination among federal, state and tribal agencies remains critical for developing logical, cost-effective M&E (especially for fish populations that cross state and tribal boundaries)

• CSMEP provides foundation for cost-effective, coordinated regional monitoring across and between “Hs”

16

Consequences of Reduction/Loss of Funding

• Limited strengths and weaknesses data assessments for additional species and subbasins

• No further development (through CSMEP) of integrated High, Medium and Low M&E designs in additional pilot areas

• Reduced work on habitat action, hatchery, harvest and hydrosystem effectiveness design processes and analyses

• Loss of a currently functional forum for the dialogue and technical analyses needed for coherent, consistent regional M&E

17

Recommendation

CSMEP is key to development of a regional M&E framework that will be widely accepted and implemented.

The Council and BPA should restore full funding through at least FY2008 as recommended and preferably through 2009 to ensure the continuity of CSMEP’s excellent staff, work products and regional inputs.

18

Questions?

19

Key Management Decisions of CSMEP Focus

Status and Trends• Has there been sufficient improvement in the status of

salmon ESUs to delist and remove ESA restrictions?

Habitat Action Effectiveness• What are the most helpful approaches for developing habitat

effectiveness M&E designs for Columbia watersheds?

Harvest Management• Do fisheries related mortalities exceed prescribed levels for

conservation of weak or ESA-listed populations, or predetermined allocation rates among user groups?

20

Key Management Decisions of CSMEP Focus

Hydrosystem Operations• Has the hydrosystem complied with performance

standards set out in the BiOp?

• Should the FCRPS change the timing of transportation of some species within the season to improve survival

Hatchery Management • What is the distribution, magnitude & impact of straying

from harvest augmentation & supplementation hatcheries?

• What is the relative reproductive success of hatchery & natural origin adults?