< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200728100 - Washington Salmonid Abundance and Productivity Monitoring Framework

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

Budgets: FY07: $512,000 | FY08: $334,000 | FY09: $364,000

Short description: Develops a statewide framework for monitoring the VSP parameters of juvenile and adult abundance and productivity for ESA listed salmonids. Implements monitoring at sites specified in the framework and enables prioritization of monitoring efforts.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0


ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable


The proposal and response left too many questions unanswered. The ISRP stands by its preliminary recommendation of "Not fundable." The ISRP's preliminary comments from June 1, 2006 are: The proposal requires considerably more detail and a better accounting of existing monitoring programs; i.e., what have we learned from monitoring other upper basin stocks that can be applied to this area? The proposal should be more than another plan to do planning. The proposal also seeks funding to develop a plan to monitor yet unnamed primary populations in the Mid- or Upper Columbia regions (smolt monitoring for two populations and adult monitoring for one population). The scientific merits of the monitoring project are difficult to evaluate without knowing what the final plan will be. Proposed construction of rotary screw traps is premature. Project personnel costs are high relative to the proposed objective. The technical background provides a discussion of salmonid population monitoring and discusses NOAA Fisheries' viability attributes, but it does not describe the status and trends of mid- and upper Columbia salmon and steelhead populations based on the results of Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership (CSMEP) efforts. Overall, the proposal omits many plans and programs to which this project could contribute in a meaningful way. Thus it does not really define the problem that is being addressed. This project is related to six other WDFW proposals for monitoring abundance and productivity, as well as six ongoing projects; however, details of the relationships are not provided. According to proponents, the proposed project will provide an "overarching context for a coordinated approach to salmon recovery monitoring of abundance and productivity in Washington State" for this work. A better approach might have been to submit this overarching proposal along with the six other WDFW projects as a complete package in one proposal. Many of the monitoring design and process questions should be have been worked out before submitting a proposal. There is a wealth of information to draw on, and it appeared that this proposal would attempt to duplicate work that has already been done in monitoring design, especially if smolt production is the focus of the fieldwork. It was still not clear how the fieldwork would be verified for accuracy. For example, the proposal describes an EMAP-like design for spawner surveys, but only 40 sites will be selected (how was this sample size determined?) and there are no procedures described in the proposal to verify precision, accuracy, or give confidence intervals.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: MS: High Priority

Review group: MSRT

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: It appears that this project is well coordinated with existing CSMEP and PNAMP processes. The amount of monitoring, and the location of that monitoring, will have to be evaluated as a package. Some MSRT members are hesitant to rank these proposals until the monitoring framework is established to be able to have a defined regional monitoring need, evaluate gaps, and compare and prioritize the monitoring projects against each other. One member stated that this effort needs to have dedicated ESA funding and be a joint tribal, federal, and state initiative.