Presentation on theme: "1 Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program Proposal 35033 for Mainstem/Systemwide Province ISRP Review Meeting July 16, 2002; Portland,"— Presentation transcript:
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 thats 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 Inter- agency Work 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 (contd - 2) Different agencies have different M&E objectives –there are many common M&E objectives (e.g. salmon, assessing all Hs) 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 (contd - 3) Science by multi-agency Committee doesnt 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 (contd - 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 from pilot 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 DatasetsPotential 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 spawner Eggs Estuary Harvest Management Spawning / 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 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, ESSAs 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) 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, Hs Improved M & E designs for Tier 3 Implemented M & E Tiers 1 and 2