Presentation on theme: "Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program"— Presentation transcript:
1 Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program Proposal for Mainstem/Systemwide ProvinceISRP Review MeetingJuly 16, 2002; Portland, OregonCBFWA, NMFS, USFWS,ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, MDFWP, CRITFC, FPCpresented by David Marmorek, ESSA Technologies
2 Outline Rationale for the project Proposed project organization Addressing possible concerns with collaborationSpecific objectivesProposed approachesSignificance 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:CBFWANMFS4 state fish agencies: ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, MDFWPUSFWSCRITFCthe Fish Passage Centerclosely involves federal, tribal and coordinating agenciesprovides action agencies with the means to accomplish what they need to do under Biological Opinions
5 Proposed Project Team Organization ¼ly Work PlansInter-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 / metadataharder to influence monitoring done by States, Tribes, FPCless consistency in methods, designs; duplication of effortsProject will have strict monitoring of deliverables by CBFWA, milestone based payments
7 Addressing concerns (cont’d - 2) Different agencies have different M&E objectivesthere 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 proposalrigorous design done by small, efficient work groupsreview done by larger group to get buy-in, do implementationlarger 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 efficiencyFunding decisions ultimately up to NWPPC and BPA.
10 Specific Objectivesserve M&E needs of NMFS & USFWS (Biological Opinions, Recovery Plans), NWPPC Fish & Wildlife Programdocument, 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 ApproachBuild on NMFS’ 3-tier structure (BIOP, Jordan et al. 2002)Integrate / coordinate M & E activities systemwide, working collaboratively across multiple scales and objectivesDesign M&E program around life histories of each speciesUse future check-ins, decision points to guide M&E needsBuild on critical assessment of existing data; make useful data / metadata broadly availableIntegrate with NWPPC/NMFS evolving data managementFill 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 dataM & E review, critical needsResults frompilot projectsCatalog & review of M & E across 3 tiersM & E designs to fill gapsSystemwide M & E programInternet -accessible data, metadata, cataloguesPilot M & E projects / analyses implementedData / analysis for mainstem & sub-basin decisions
13 Potential Uses [Tiers] Approach: Build on Existing Data and Fill GapsExample DatasetsPotential Uses [Tiers]1. Intensively studied stocks; long time seriesTrends in survival and abundance over life cycle [2, 3]Fill gaps in spatial and temporal coverage2. Existing regional surveys with synoptic presence / absence dataGeneral indication of distribution, status trends [1, 2]Adjust for biases or do probability-based surveys3.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 stageCorrelate with historical time series; ensure continuity
14 Smolts / sub-adults per spawner Look at the whole life cycle!FreshwaterSpawning / Rearing Habitat ActionsSmolts / sub-adults per spawnerEggsHydro- system ActionsIn-riverTransportedHarvest ManagementEstuary Habitat ActionsEstuaryFigure 4.To describe what data we have S/R Survival through hydrosystemOceanResident Fish (e.g. bull trout)Anadromous Fish (e.g. chinook)
16 Relationship to Existing Projects (see handout for other systemwide proposals) Provides a coordinated mechanism for integration of separate studies, detecting gaps, avoiding duplicationSpeeds implementation of NWPPC Information StudySupports, but does not duplicate bull trout RMEStrengthens data quality for harvest stock assessment groups (e.g. U.S. v Oregon TAC)Contract management time provided by CBFWA Coordination contract and Foundation fundingComplements and supports, but does not duplicate, ESSA’s Multi-watershed Innovative Proposal
19 ESSA ‘Multi-watershed’ Proposal (18-month Tier 3 Pilot Project) CBFWA Systemwide, Collaborative M&E ProgramWatershed restoration hypotheses worth testing in existing projectsTier 3 Habitat Inventory ActivitiesOther tiers, H’sPilot test of selected hypotheses in selected watersheds using existing dataDetermine Deficiencies in Experimental Designs / MonitoringSimulate improvementsImproved M & E designs for Tier 3Tiers 1 and 2Develop improved experimental designs, monitoring protocolsImplemented M & E