FY07-09 proposal 200003900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: This collaborative effort is the extension of the Fish and Wildlife Program's regionally standardized monitoring and evaluation efforts.

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This project proposal is an omnibus collaboration for M&E in the Walla Walla basin by co-managers to address the 4 H's. As such it is exhaustive and identifies many elements for monitoring and evaluation. In general this proposal was very difficult to review and evaluate as it lacks articulation of clear and prioritized monitoring objectives and clear purpose. While liberally peppered with algebraic expressions, it is not clear what was to be monitored and evaluated. Specifically, what management decisions are the sponsors tying this work to? Moreover, similar to the Umatilla M&E projects, this project proposes to "measure everything" without some prioritization of activities tied to specific information needs. We recommend a roadmap of sorts as to who is going to do what and when? That the many contributors and co-managers participated in the proposal is a refreshing and potential strength, it is a little unclear who will do what and the enormity of the enterprise. The project is a collaboration between ODFW, WDFW, and CTUIR. The project is closely related to several BPA funded projects and CTUIR projects. The sponsors provide a table and description of the roles of each agency in the project, but they do not provide adequate descriptions of what the roles actually are. What does “participation” mean functionally? What is the specific role of the “coordinating agency”? How will analyses be shared? In many cases the descriptions are vague, confusing, and repetitive. The proposal needs to be better organized and more concise. For example, in the “Approach“ section the approach is not described. Also, the discussion of the “Experimental Design” is vague and confusing. A clear picture of the design does not emerge from the description in this section nor does it make clear the integrative nature of the project. Simple grammatical errors, figures located many pages away from the first text reference, and incorrect references to tables and figures hampered review and could easily have been corrected. For example, Table 2 (referred to as Table 6 in the text) does not describe a sampling design (significant details required of a sampling design are not considered) as the sponsors suggest. It is primarily a list of metrics and methods. Tables are incorrectly referred to in the text. Such mechanical errors in proposal preparation do not convey confidence that the work will be conducted with attention detail. The project history is not organized according to the original objectives, and thus it is not possible to determine whether the objectives have been achieved. The sponsors provide information on what activities they engaged in and do not summarize the major findings of these actions. They mention development of an RM&E plan but do not describe the plan. The individual projects appear to have accomplished quite a bit. It is not clear, however, from the description of the project history why the collaborative effort is needed and what it will accomplish. Specific information regarding stock assessment is particularly important. Description of the monitoring program should have been consolidated instead of discussed in pieces throughout the proposal. While detailed descriptions of some of the methods and analyses, others such as the habitat work were entirely omitted. The project history section needs to list findings (effectiveness) from previous work and not merely activities that have been instituted. Also, the proposal refers to tables and figures, but infrequently interprets the information within them. What is it that is being monitored and evaluated, and why? As presented, this proposal is not an adaptive management experiment, but an attempt to provide complete assessment of all salmonids at every life stage. Essentially, we are not convinced of the feasibility of delivering the enormity of the project and that information will be used in an adaptive management context. This is so large that as proposed it is difficult to see how they will accomplish their task and actually evaluate the data for management application. Ultimately, the ISRP recommends that this project (and related ones) be the subject of site and program review within the next 2 years. Below are some specific comments on individual work elements: WE 1.1. Will the dam counts provide an estimate of adult returns for all important spawning areas? How will smolt/spawner ratios indicate whether in-basin factors are limiting? WE 1.2. How will the redd and carcass counts be related to adult counts at dams? WE 1.3. The sponsors do not appear to be aware of the problems associated with counting bull trout redds. The sponsors conclude there is no consistent trends in redd counts but then they go on to say that the time series is too short to conclude that there is no declining trend in one of the tributaries. You can’t have it both ways. There is clearly a sharp declining trend in the North Fork Touchet. What does “collaborative analysis” mean? It is not possible to distinguish bull trout spawning areas in figure 10. WE 1.4. How will coho redds be distinguished from Chinook redds? WE 1.5. The sponsors provide no description of the methods for habitat monitoring and evaluation and how this data will be analyzed. The instead refer to a report. Proposals are supposed to be stand-alone documents and so habitat monitoring should have been described. If the sponsors can provide minute details on some sampling methods and data analysis, they should also provide a description of the habitat monitoring program including metrics, sampling scheme, etc. WE 1.6. The sponsors refer to “spawning/holding/ and pre-spawn performance” of Chinook but do not explain what they mean by performance. WE 1.7. The whole discussion of placement of the screw traps is unclear. WE 2.3. The sponsors did not define “freshwater productivity”. Is this work related to WE 1.7? WE 2.4. How will “biomass accumulation” and “productivity” be determined? Objective 4. The monitoring program should be described in more detail. How does it related to the work described in Objectives 1-3? What are the reference areas? Treatment areas? Will a BACI design be employed? How will the “hypothesis” that status and trends are related to management activities be tested? How does this program related to project-specific monitoring?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: Most of the ISRP’s comments were adequately addressed. The sponsors, however, did not truly address the need for prioritization of M&E actions to answer key management questions. The ISRP recognizes that the sponsors provided sound justification for their basic monitoring designs, taking an EMAP approach to assess smolt emigration and adult returns. Moreover, the conceptual Venn diagram is a good heuristic tool and the sponsors did provide better information on completion of tasks and activities, but they did not provide much quantitative data of findings to date. Thus, while the response represents an important improvement, the originally identified deficiency remains in place. Ultimately, the ISRP will need some detailed specifics to more fully evaluate the rigor of the science behind this collaborative M&E project. The ISRP also identifies the need for this project (and directly related projects) to undergo an independent, comprehensive, site review to assess the integration of M&E data with management decisions before the next cycle of project funding. The sponsors have been conducting this project for six years. What is the justification for continuing project and what has been learned (and management adapted or maintained to date)? Qualification: Finally, a decision analysis framework for fisheries management is required that incorporates risk assessment and options. As presented, the response (which is similar to that from Proposal #199905001) did not address the alignment of M&E tasks with key management decisions and objectives (as provided reasonably well within the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (see Table 7.9)). In short, Objectives as listed in the proposal and response do not provide a clear program of data-driven evaluation and adaptive management.