Download this document

CA – an Integral Component of
Performance Assessments, Planning and
Adaptive Management
‣ Provides more timely access to critical
information
‣ Documentation essential to population, ESU and
programmatic level assessments
‣ Supports transparency and integrity in
government and tribal resource management

Key Management Questions
• Are we meeting biological and programmatic performance
objectives established within the Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program, FCRPS BiOp and ESA Recovery Plans?
• What factors are limiting our ability to achieve performance
standards or objectives?
• What is the effectiveness of different hydro and offsite
mitigation actions in addressing these limiting factors?
• Are actions being implemented and accomplished as
proposed?
• Is research and monitoring information accessible,
adequately documented, and compatible with regional
standards and protocols for monitoring, data collection and
access?

Strategies, Performance Measures and
Adaptive Management Framework
‣ Management Questions addressed through RM&E strategies and
actions proposed in our FCRPS BiOp Proposed Action , the NOAA
RPA and the subsequent AA Implementation Plans
• Fish Population Status Monitoring
• Hydro RM&E
• Tributary Habitat RM&E
• Estuary and Ocean RM&E
• Harvest RM&E
• Hatchery RM&E
• Predation and Invasive Species Management RM&E
• Coordination and Data Management
• Project Implementation and Compliance Monitoring
‣ Performance Tracking and Adaptive Management through
Comprehensive Evaluations and Contingency Triggers

Proposals
Contracting
Protocol and Method Documentation
Data Storage
Data Sharing /Transfer

CA Products Critical to
Performance Assessments
‣ Status, Action Effectiveness, and Critical Uncertainty
monitoring and research supports these assessments
‣ Population and ESA level fish status and trends information
relative to performance targets
‣ H specific and population specific indicators such as, natural
origin spawners, juvenile out-migrant abundance, adult per
smolts out, smolts per adult back, and other life stage
survival information.
‣ Timely access and adequate documentation for assessments
is critical.
‣ CA fish indicator focused products will also support
management of other H level data such as tributary and
ocean habitat metrics.

BPA Data Management Plan Released to
ISAB June 14 th for public comment:
Focus on Seven Strategies
1. Documentation of Management Questions into BPA
system tools
2. Documentation of Metadata: Protocols, methods, study
plan metrics/indicators, location, people, etc.
3. Data Collection Tools (handhelds and data entry forms)
4. Data Entry (steward and QA/QC)
5. Data Storage (Infrastructure)
6. Data Transfer (exchange formats and web services)
7. Analysis and Reporting (key reports and systems for
regional consumption)

BPA’s
Contributions
to Data
Management
may Shift
Based on
Needs of
Sponsors or
Program

Metadata Documentation
‣ Proper documentation of protocols and methods electronically
takes the region forward to the next generation of science to
support sharing, exchange of data.
• Not Meeting RPA need to standardize Fish data collection
methods:
• For two years BPA has offered time and support to
documents protocols in the www.monitoringmethods.org
tools with little progress in the Fish community
• Habitat has a PIBO, AREMP, CHaMP, EPA Macro-
Inverts, and BPA/SRFB Habitat Action Effectiveness
Protocols and methods documented with standard data
entry forms and exchange standards.

Metadata Documentation
‣ BPA Approved Methods.
• Fish Length
• Habitat
• SNPS Genetics

Metadata Documentation
‣ Recent WDFW Meeting acknowledge state wide standards to
be developed and documented in mm.org
‣ Eastern Oregon ODFW meeting result agreement of Biologist
and data managers in need in need for standard to exchange
common abundance term
• Natural Origin Spawner Excluding Jacks = DET
• Natural Origin Spawners = SPS
• Adult Population Escapement = Oregon Explorer?
• + Others
‣ Agreement of team of BiOs and a data manager to work to
document protocols/methods and standard field data entry
forms to support Exchange format.

BPA BiOp Steelhead Monitoring
Locations

BPA BiOp Funded Chinook Monitoring
for Listed Stocks

Where do we go to look at all Species
and all programs?
‣ PNAMP: www.monitoringresources.org
• Monitoring Site Manager and Explorer to help document locations
‣ NOAA SPS (Only Listed Salmonid Species)
‣ StreamNet
• Primarily BPA Funded Salmonid Populations
• Some Lower Snake Comp
• Some State and Tribal
• Some PUD
‣ Resident Species?
• KNRD Data base
• StreamNet?
‣ NPCC: The Council’s HLI Report (in Development and not west coast
wide)

Example of Chinook Data and the need
to Communicate Stories
Based on SPS system outputs
Natural-Origin Escapement

Issues with PIT Tag Data and Estimates
of Adult Escapement as component of
Natural Origin Spawners
1. Documentation of study plan
2. Out of population detections or
straying into populations
without detectors?
3. Link of GIS and Genetics SNP
for HO proportion based on
Parental Based Tagging.
4. Arrays not able to cover the
full population’s distribution
5. Comparison of PIT
escapement to spawner
abundance estimates
6. Use of hatchery fraction
7. Mark retention and mortality

Future Issue
‣ Better location data to facilitate coordination
• BPA Project Action Effectiveness may require “Juvenile
Density” or “Adult Escapement” and does not want to
duplicate effort between BPA and non BPA funded M&E
‣ Limitation on ESA Take:
• Proper planning to reduce take on populations below
critical thresholds
‣ Metadata documentation need to be complete
‣ Completed reports (BPA executives have poor opinion of
RM&E Reports and timeliness)
‣ Provision of electronic data capture tools:
• require standard method data entry forms
• Managed under 1 BPA project to ensure cheep equipment
‣ Data Sharing Agreements

The Funding of the CA
‣ Commitments and financial support and how the CA work fits within
the broader Data Management Strategy
• What are the States, PUDs and NOAA providing to Match BPA
funds, Status of EPA grant?
• Additional funds to manage CA needs may come at the expense
of existing monitoring and assessments that are not critical to
BiOp implementation.
• CRITFC contract to be in place in June 2013 to support NPT,
WS, CTUIR and Yakama Tribes 2011 Appendix M request
• StreamNet
• FY 13 Support for Shoshone Bannock data strategy
• FY 14 Funds planned for Colville
• FY 14 States ask for additional funds beyond 2011 Appendix
M working out how to address the need.

The Future of the CA
‣ Progress on Fish abundance metrics needs to be demonstrated
in SPS and StreamNet
‣ Future Hatchery and resident species abundance indicators of
interest to BPA management but success most be
demonstrated.
‣ Integration of CA approach in current Tributary Habitat Program