1

The Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP)

CBFWA – Ken MacDonaldESSA Technologies Ltd. - Marc Porter

State AgenciesIDFGODFWWDFW

Federal AgenciesNOAAUSFWSEPADFO

Tribal AgenciesCRITFCNez Perce TribeColville TribesYakama NationUmatilla Tribes

ConsultantsEco LogicalQuantitative ConsultantsPERWEST

2

1. Getting buy-in from all M&E entities;2. Ensuring collection of consistent, high quality

monitoring data to better inform Basin decisions;3. Creating cost-effective M&E alternatives to address

multiple agency data needs at multiple spatial / temporal scales; and

4. Determining the trade-offs that make most sense

Challenges and problems recognized at the beginning of CSMEP:

3

Steps CSMEP has taken to resolve problems:

• 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

4

CSMEP’s Organizational Structure

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

5

Key Management Decisions of Current CSMEP Focus

Status and Trends

• Has there been sufficient improvement in the status of salmon ESUs to delist and remove ESA restrictions?

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?

6

Key Management Decisions of Current CSMEP Focus

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

effectiveness M&E designs for Columbia watersheds?

Harvest Management• Are fisheries related mortalities exceeding prescribed levels

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

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

harvest augmentation and supplementation hatcheries?

7

FY 07-08 CSMEP Products• Strengths and Weakness Assessments for Chinook and Steelhead• SOTR Data Quality Guide• Pilot subbasin High, Medium and Low design templates and

recommendations for integration – Snake Pilot• Support for John Day Pilot • Recommendations for hybrid fish population abundance designs• Designs for using PIT-tags to address multiple S&T, 4 H questions• Supplementation Hatchery Effectiveness Designs for straying and

productivity• Simulation Model for assessing TRT decision rules• Improved harvest impact models assessing “Take”• Assessment of cumulative benefit of habitat restoration actions• Database to calculate costs of integrated S/T and 4H monitoring designs • Recommendations for Regional Monitoring Framework

8

CSMEP Impact on Member Programs

WDFW• New survey designs that contain variance estimates for

Chinook & steelhead populations based on MRC methods• Increased sampling sizes for fall Chinook monitoring to better

detect CWT strays from hatcheries

IDFG• Integration of monitoring across fish species• Development of probabilistic sampling for juvenile monitoring

ODFW• Development of a monitoring program for mid Columbia

steelhead based on hybrid of EMAP & existing routine surveys• Development of a broad-scale monitoring design proposed to

the “BiOp remand” group

9

CSMEP Impact on Member Programs

Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs)• CSMEP models and analyses 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

10

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

11

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 can potentially inform and implement Council program amendment monitoring measures

12

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 effectiveness design processes and analyses

• No integration of CSMEP salmon/steelhead population M&E designs with resident fish or fish habitat M&E/Wildlife

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

13

Questions?