Response for project 200303600: Cbfwa Monitor/Eval Program

Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

We desire renewal of our project for Fiscal Year 2006 and find that the Council staff Fiscal Year 2006 budget of $968,802 is consistent with our expectations.

Accomplishments since the last review

FY 2004 - Initiated a collaborative monitoring and evaluation design process with representatives from state, tribal, and federal entities concerned with RME. - Conducted outreach to other entities involved in RME in the Columbia River basin. - Developed a publicly accessible website to coordinate CSMEP activities and disseminate work products and reference materials. - Collaboratively developed a list of Tier 1, 2 and 3 M&E questions for Status, Trend, and Effectiveness Monitoring. - Identified a list of fish performance measures for addressing Tier 1, 2 and 3 questions. - Designed and implemented a subbasin scale data inventory process to locate and evaluate sources of existing data suitable for addressing M&E questions and deriving the identified fish performance measures. - Completed pilot data inventories of Lower Columbia, Imnaha, Lewis, and Pend Oreille subbasins, the South Fork Salmon River Watershed of the Salmon Subbasin, and the Selway River Watershed of the Clearwater Subbasin. - Developed prototype of web accessible database to store the data inventory metadata. - Review the strengths and weaknesses of inventory data for addressing M&E questions, identifying data gaps to address in systemwide M&E designs that build on the strengths of existing monitoring programs - Held three monitoring design workshops (June, July, September). FY 2005 - Began data inventory of a second set of subbasins in FY05 (Okanogan, Methow, Kalama, Grande Ronde, Deschutes, Upper Salmon River, Middle Fork Salmon River). - Tested and revised the prototype Web meta-database - Used the EPA Data Quality Objectives Process to develop monitoring design templates for Status & Trend monitoring and Hydro, Habitat, Harvest, Hatchery Action Effectiveness monitoring. - Held three monitoring design workshops (December 2004; April and June 2005). - Policy feedback workshop involving regional decision-makers (July 2005). - Presentation to NPCC (June 2004) - Presentation of CSMEP goals and achievements at professional conferences (Presented at NPIC American Fisheries Society general meeting in November 2004, will make presentation at 135th American Fisheries Society meeting in Anchorage, AK September 2005)

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

- Continue collaborative work planning to ensure that CSMEP activities do not duplicate any other efforts (this has worked well in fy04 and fy05) - Continue data inventory and data strengths and weaknesses analysis for another set of subbasins. - Complete the collaborative design and evaluation of alternative monitoring designs to select the preferred template for Status and Trend, and Actions Effectiveness monitoring, interacting closely with PNAMP entities and other groups. - Test and refine the design template by applying it to the data inventory results from the second set of subbasins.- Work with Regional M&E groups (e.g., Federal RME, Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Program (PNAMP), NOAA-F Technical Recovery Team (TRT) to review, revise and then implement the preferred alternative on a pilot basis in selected areas, consistent with the resources available for M&E. - Develop training and communication materials to make CSMEP designs and design tools available to monitoring and evaluation initiatives throughout the basin (e.g., Subbasin planning). Make presentations to educate a wide range of groups on how to utilize these templates for designing M&E at different scales

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

CSMEP does not directly address a specific subbasin plan, but its results will be directly applicable to all subbasin plans. Templates are being developed by focusing on the Lower Snake River Basin. CSMEP biometricians will review the subbasin plans for this area for guidance on the nature of the effectiveness monitoring templates they design (e.g., for habitat action effectiveness evaluation). A direct benefit for subbasin planning is the growing CSMEP data inventory meta-database. This meta-data set identifies fish monitoring data and CSMEP biometricians have or will reviewed it for its strengths and weaknesses for answering monitoring questions. CSMEP is intended to provide a collaborative integration of M&E activities across the Basin, in response to both the NOAA-F and USFWS biological opinions, as well as the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. This requires close co-ordination with many programmatic entities in the development of annual and quarterly work plans, and adaptation to the constantly evolving M&E activities of other entities. These programmatic entities include: • Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) provides a forum for coordinating monitoring activities and developing common monitoring approaches. • NPCC F & W Program representatives focussed on M & E, sub-basin planning and data management (e.g. North-west Environmental Data Network). • RME Workgroups responsible for M & E and data management in the 2000 NMFS Biological Opinion on the FCRPS, and the Federal Caucus’ Basinwide Recovery Strategy. • NOAA-F TRTs involved with recommending M & E for both status and action effectiveness. • USFWS RMEG (Recovery, Monitoring and Evaluation Group), which is developing M & E strategies to respond to the USFWS Biological Opinion on bull trout, and bull trout recovery plans. • Sub-basin planning efforts, particularly as related to M & E efforts. • Stock assessment work by groups concerned with harvest (e.g. U.S. v. Oregon TAC). • Groups conducting effectiveness assessments of the effects of habitat restoration actions on survival (e.g. EDT modeling efforts, NOAA-Fisheries). • Tribal groups actively involved with M&E processes, including CRITFC member tribes (Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, Yakama) and the UCUT (Upper Columbia United Tribes) such as the Colville Confederated Tribes.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

Other comments