FY07-09 proposal 200303600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | CBFWA Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program |
| Proposal ID | 200303600 |
| Organization | Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) |
| Short description | CSMEP seeks to undertake additional metadata inventories of Columbia subbasin fish data, expand their strength and weaknesses analyses of this existing data, and broaden their collaborative design of improved M&E methods for the Columbia RIver Basin. |
| Information transfer | Information from the CSMEP project will be transferred via CSMEP's web-accessible meta-database maintained by ODFW (StreamNet), project reports, and PowerPoint presentations. All products developed by the project will be made freely available on CSMEP's public access Internet site maintained by CBFWA. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| David Marmorek | ESSA Technologies Ltd. | dmarmorek@essa.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| David Marmorek | ESSA Technologies Ltd. | dmarmorek@essa.com |
| Frank Young | frank.young@cbfwa.org | |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Salmonidssecondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Interior Redband Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | CSMEP undertook additional metadata inventories and strength/weaknesses assessments of fish data in Columbia subbbasins, and developed preliminary M&E designs for S&T of fish populations and effectiveness of habitat, harvest, hydro and hatchery actions. |
| 2004 | CSMEP undertook metadata inventories and strengths/weaknesses of fish population data for selected pilot subbasins in WA, OR and ID. A web database was developed for access to this data. CSMEP convened three multi-agency M&E design workshops. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198810804 | Streamnet (CIS/NED) | StreamNet assists CSMEP on data inventories, databases and a web-accessible meta-database of inventory information. |
| BPA | 199403300 | Fish Passage Center | Biometricians from FPC and CSMEP have worked together on methods of analysis of PIT-tag data to address hydrosystem action effectiveness questions. |
| BPA | 199302900 | Survival Est For Passage Throu | CSMEP Hydro Action Effectiveness Subgroup has utilized NOAA's survival estimates for assessing alternative sampling and evaluation designs. |
| BPA | 199602000 | Pit Tagging Spring/Summer Chin | CSS studies have been utilized to develop alternative sampling and evaluation designs for hydro action effectiveness. |
| BPA | 200301700 | Integrated Status/Effect Progr | Designs and results from the Wenatchee and John Day pilot projects have been utilized by CSMEP. CSMEP has provided designs for the Salmon Basin pilot study (both action effectiveness and status/trend M&E). |
| BPA | 200304100 | Eval Salmon Thru Snake R Dams | Results of NOAA's delayed mortality studies have been utilized by CSMEP for hydro action effectiveness M&E designs. |
| BPA | 200400200 | PNAMP Funding | CSMEP and PNAMP closely coordinate work plans and work products, to avoid any duplication of effort. |
| Other: BPA-Innovative | 34008 | Multiwatershed Approach to Assessing Effects of Habitat Restoration Actions on Anadromous and Resident Fish Populations | This innovative project (conducted by ESSA Technologies Ltd.) has helped to guide thinking within CSMEP's Habitat Action Effectiveness subgroup. |
| BPA | 200304200 | Nwfsc Salmon Data Mgt/Analysis | CSMEP will utilize the database design ideas developed by NOAA, as they become available, for data to be gathered in CSMEP pilot projects during fy07-09. |
| BPA | 200207500 | Technical Recovery Team (TRT) | The CSMEP Status and Trend subgroup, working closely with NOAA-F participants, has helped to develop simulation tools and M&E designs for evaluating recovery status of populations using TRT viability criteria. |
| BPA | 198335003 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E | CSMEP is building regional scale M&E designs to assess hatchery effectiveness that complement hatchery-specific M&E programs. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Collaborative work plan development | 1. Interact with federal, state and tribal programmatic and technical entities responsible for monitoring and evaluation of fish and wildlife, to ensure that quarterly work plans developed and executed under this project are well integrated with ongoing work by these entities. | None | This objective helps to implement one of the integrated RME strategies outlined in the NPCC Draft Research Plan (Nov 2005) |
| 2 Inventory existing data relevant to questions | 2. Collaboratively inventory existing monitoring data that bear on the problem of evaluating the status and trend of salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other species of regional importance across the Columbia Basin, including the Okanagan Basin in Canada. | None | Multiple subbasin plans: CSMEP detailed data inventories provide a significant improvement over subbasin data summaries, and allow queries across multiple subbasins and performance measures. |
| 3 Organize subset of data into accessible form | 3. Work with existing entities (e.g. StreamNet, NOAA Fisheries, NWPCC) to make a subset of existing monitoring data available through the Internet, recognizing the continuing evolution of data management in the Columbia Basin. | None | Multiple subbasins: CSMEP and StreamNet work under this objective provides metadata for over 50 performance measures via a web-accessible, searchable database. Page reference refers to NPCC 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program. |
| 4 Evaluate ability to answer Qs with existing data | 4. Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing monitoring data and associated evaluation methods for answering key questions at various spatial scales concerning the state of ecosystems and fish habitat, as well as fish distributions, stock status and responses to management actions. | None | Monitoring to evaluate the effects of habitat and other actions features prominently in both the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program (e.g., section 3.2), and in the 2000 Program (pg. refs indicated for 2000 Program) |
| 5 Collaborative monitoring program design | 5. Collaboratively design improved monitoring and evaluation methods that will fill information gaps and provide better answers to these questions in the future, by providing state and tribal fish agency participation and work products for multi-agency development of regionally coordinated monitoring programs. | None | This is a critical part of 2000 NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program, 2005 Draft Research Plan, numerous subbasins plans, NMFS and USFWS 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion, as described in original CSMEP proposal. |
| 6 Multi-agency impl of monitoring programs | 6. Coordinate state and tribal participation and work products for regionally coordinated, multi-agency implementation of pilot projects or large scale monitoring programs. | None | CSMEP pilot projects in ID, OR and WA are interacting with the developers of multiple subbasin plans to infuse their implementation with strong monitoring and evaluation. |
| 7 Multi-agency eval of new monitoring programs | 7.Participate in regional forums to evaluate new monitoring program results, assess new ability to answer key questions, propose revisions to monitoring approaches, and coordinate proposed changes with regional monitoring programs. | None | CSMEP will participate in evaluation of new pilot projects with improved M&E, as they begin to generate results that permit comparisons of alternative sampling, response and evaluation designs. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | 1. Develop Work Plans / Interact w Programmatic Entities (all tasks) | 1.1 Develop CSMEP Quarterly Workplans 1.2 Quarterly Progress Reports 1.3 Preparation of Draft and Final Annual Reports 1.4 CSMEP conference calls, meetings and workshops 1.5 Coordination w PNAMP on joint activities and work products 1.6 Present CSMEP progress at various Columbia Basin forums | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $652,050 |
|
Biological objectives 1 Collaborative work plan development |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | 2. Inventory existing data relevant to questions | 2.1 QA on StreamNet Inventory Work for ID, WA, OR pilot projects 2.2 Inventory Sockeye; Bull Trout; Other Resident Fish of Special Concern | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $147,381 |
|
Biological objectives 2 Inventory existing data relevant to questions |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | 3. Organize subset of data into accessible form | 3.1 Continue to improve CSMEP web-based metadata application 3.2 CSMEP website improvement | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $98,103 |
|
Biological objectives 3 Organize subset of data into accessible form |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | 4. Evaluate the Ability to Answer Key Questions with Existing Data | 4.1 Organization of existing data for Snake Basin pilot design 4.2 Organization of existing data for OR pilot design 4.3 Organization of existing data for WA pilot design | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $260,775 |
|
Biological objectives 4 Evaluate ability to answer Qs with existing data |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status & Trend Monitoring + Action Effectiveness |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | 5. Collaborative Monitoring Program Design | 5.1 Consolidate Snake River Pilot M&E design and PrOACT tradeoff analysis 5.2 Complete three pilot M&E projects at provincial / ESU scales in ID, OR, WA 5.2a ID pilot project 5.2b WA pilot project 5.2c OR pilot project 5.3 Extend application of CSMEP insights and tools to other parts of CRB and PNAMP entities 5.3a Status & Trends 5.3b Hydro 5.3c Habitat 5.3d Hatchery 5.3e Harvest 5.4 Feed M&E results into NWPCC Provincial Review Process 5.5 Get feedback from CRB entities on various M&E designs | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $1,549,722 |
|
Biological objectives 5 Collaborative monitoring program design |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | 6. Multi-Agency Implementation of Monitoring Programs | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $260,676 |
|
Biological objectives 6 Multi-agency impl of monitoring programs |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | 7. Multi-Agency Evaluation of Results of New Monitoring Programs | 7.1 Collaborative review of federal RME projects, WA SRFB Effectiveness Monitoring Projects, and other recent pilot projects | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $104,028 |
|
Biological objectives 7 Multi-agency eval of new monitoring programs |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Includes all salary and state/tribal/private agency internal overhead costs | $809,621 | $809,621 | $809,621 |
| Travel | Includes travel, per diems, communication expenses and workshop expenses | $100,978 | $100,978 | $100,978 |
| Overhead | CBFWA 12.8% overhead, mandated by BPA | $113,646 | $113,646 | $113,646 |
| Totals | $1,024,245 | $1,024,245 | $1,024,245 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $3,072,735 |
| Total work element budget: | $3,072,735 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BPA -> PER | Statistical analysis | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| CBFWA | Staff time | $86,850 | $86,850 | $86,850 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| DFO | Sockeye data inventory and assessment | $22,500 | $22,500 | $22,500 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| StreamNet | Inventory and database work | $90,000 | $90,000 | $90,000 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| USFWS | Bull trout statistical analysis | $37,000 | $37,000 | $37,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $286,350 | $286,350 | $286,350 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,024,246 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,024,246 |
Comments: Assume continuation of CSMEP, gradually improving M&E in other parts of the Columbia River Basin |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 2014
Comments: This assumes roughly a 10-year period to incrementally implement improved M&E throughout the Columbia River Basin.
Final deliverables: Systemwide, consistent and cost-effective M&E throughout the Columbia River Basin
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $984,500 | $984,500 | $0 | $1,969,000 | Expense | Basinwide | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $984,500 | $984,500 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposal presented a thorough and detailed explanation of the background and need for the project, as well as a scientific overview of the challenges of large-scale monitoring. The problem created by inadequate data and the challenges to obtaining them in a large setting like the Columbia basin is well presented. The continuation of the ongoing project should be useful in establishing better monitoring and evaluation programs systemwide. The proposal clearly describes the rationale and significance of the project to the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, subbasin planning, and other large-scale monitoring programs such as the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). It quotes relevant passages from the Research Plan and the ISAB/RP's supplementation report. It also provides helpful diagrams and a very detailed explanation to relate this project to other projects. The history of the project is described objective by objective. The summary of how CSMEP has addressed each of its early goals is well done. This project has made much progress in a relatively short time. It probably represents the most significant collaborative multi-species fish population monitoring effort in the Columbia River Basin, if not the entire US. Progress is adequately described, with hot links to additional information, reports, and presentations. The proposal, specifically Table F1, gives an excellent overview of the tasks, description of products, and timing, as well as a list of collaborating entities for each of the work elements. Details of each objective were cleanly laid out in an organized fashion. There is an extensive list of work elements described but not always with enough detail to assess. Some of the methods are ongoing, while others await development among collaborators, but the methods are well described in general and appropriate to their particular settings. There are so may tasks that progress on each is not completely uniform; e.g., the hatchery action effectiveness work is perhaps not quite as far along as some of the habitat or status and trend monitoring. For example consider the question raised in Table F4: "To what extent can hatcheries be used to enhance viability of natural populations while keeping impacts to non-target populations within acceptable limits?" This begs for a definition of "enhance viability". The sponsors should consider using the RASP definition of supplementation and questions that arise from that definition. Also, in the nine listed questions there is no explicit identification of the important questions of whether natural origin (NOR) abundance can be maintained or improved by supplementation, and no mention of the long-term fitness consequences of supplementation. These are deficiencies that should be addressed. The proposal clearly shows that the project investigators have given much thought to monitoring and evaluation, and their conclusions to date indicate that they place strong emphasis on analyzing monitoring data, not just collecting data. The proposal identifies excellent plans for information transfer including via CSMEP's web accessible meta-database, project reports, and PowerPoint presentations. All products developed by the project will be made freely available on CSMEP's public access Internet site maintained by CBFWA. There is likely to be indirect long-term benefit to focal species through links with other projects. The project investigators should consider the effects on non-focal species because this project provides a rare opportunity to update the status of some of these species at a broad scale. As the elements of CSMEP move from planning to implementation the ISRP or ISAB should be used to review these elements. Some workgroups are further along than others; the questions they are asking, and how they are being approached is still under development. Independent peer-review at timely intervals will help ensure that the analyses will serve the regional management needs.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The proposal presented a thorough and detailed explanation of the background and need for the project, as well as a scientific overview of the challenges of large-scale monitoring. The problem created by inadequate data and the challenges to obtaining them in a large setting like the Columbia basin is well presented. The continuation of the ongoing project should be useful in establishing better monitoring and evaluation programs systemwide. The proposal clearly describes the rationale and significance of the project to the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, subbasin planning, and other large-scale monitoring programs such as the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). It quotes relevant passages from the Research Plan and the ISAB/RP's supplementation report. It also provides helpful diagrams and a very detailed explanation to relate this project to other projects. The history of the project is described objective by objective. The summary of how CSMEP has addressed each of its early goals is well done. This project has made much progress in a relatively short time. It probably represents the most significant collaborative multi-species fish population monitoring effort in the Columbia River Basin, if not the entire US. Progress is adequately described, with hot links to additional information, reports, and presentations. The proposal, specifically Table F1, gives an excellent overview of the tasks, description of products, and timing, as well as a list of collaborating entities for each of the work elements. Details of each objective were cleanly laid out in an organized fashion. There is an extensive list of work elements described but not always with enough detail to assess. Some of the methods are ongoing, while others await development among collaborators, but the methods are well described in general and appropriate to their particular settings. There are so may tasks that progress on each is not completely uniform; e.g., the hatchery action effectiveness work is perhaps not quite as far along as some of the habitat or status and trend monitoring. For example consider the question raised in Table F4: "To what extent can hatcheries be used to enhance viability of natural populations while keeping impacts to non-target populations within acceptable limits?" This begs for a definition of "enhance viability". The sponsors should consider using the RASP definition of supplementation and questions that arise from that definition. Also, in the nine listed questions there is no explicit identification of the important questions of whether natural origin (NOR) abundance can be maintained or improved by supplementation, and no mention of the long-term fitness consequences of supplementation. These are deficiencies that should be addressed. The proposal clearly shows that the project investigators have given much thought to monitoring and evaluation, and their conclusions to date indicate that they place strong emphasis on analyzing monitoring data, not just collecting data. The proposal identifies excellent plans for information transfer including via CSMEP's web accessible meta-database, project reports, and PowerPoint presentations. All products developed by the project will be made freely available on CSMEP's public access Internet site maintained by CBFWA. There is likely to be indirect long-term benefit to focal species through links with other projects. The project investigators should consider the effects on non-focal species because this project provides a rare opportunity to update the status of some of these species at a broad scale. As the elements of CSMEP move from planning to implementation the ISRP or ISAB should be used to review these elements. Some workgroups are further along than others; the questions they are asking, and how they are being approached is still under development. Independent peer-review at timely intervals will help ensure that the analyses will serve the regional management needs.