Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project
Statement of Work and Budget FY2005

BPA Project Number:  2003-036-00
BPA Project Title: Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project
Contract Number:  15257
Contract Title:  PI 2003-036-00 CBFWA Monitor/Evaluation Program
Performance/Budget Period: October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2005

Work Plan for FY 2005
CBFWA Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP)
Project No. 2003-036-00

This project is a collaborative effort, led by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). It is co-sponsored by BPA, the NOAA Fisheries (abbreviated here as NOAAF, previously called National Marine Fisheries Service or NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), four state fish agencies (WDFW, ODFW, IDFG, MFWP), the Fish Passage Center (FPC), the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and other Columbia Basin tribes. It also involves several other Columbia Basin entities, such as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). The project began in October 2003 through BPA funding of the Mainstem Systemwide set of projects, and was designed to continue for 3 years, until the end of September 2006.
The project focuses on the issue of systemwide monitoring and evaluation of fish status, addressing requirements of NMFS and USFWS Biological Opinions and Recovery Plans as well as the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. It proposes an integrated, collaborative effort by fisheries scientists and biometricians to fulfil seven objectives:

1. Interact with federal, state and tribal programmatic and technical entities responsible for monitoring and evaluation of fish and wildlife, to ensure that quarterly work plans developed and executed under this project are well integrated with ongoing work by these entities. (Interaction of CSMEP, PNAMP, and NOAA/AA Pilot Project is particularly important to this task).

2. Collaboratively inventory existing monitoring data that bear on the problem of evaluating the status and trend of salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other species of regional importance across the U.S. portion of the Columbia Basin, and for selected parts of the Columbia Basin in Canada which affect the status of key fish stocks in the U.S. Columbia Basin (e.g. Okanagan sockeye).

3. Work with existing entities (e.g. StreamNet, NOAA Fisheries, NPCC) to make a subset of existing monitoring data available through the Internet, recognizing the continuing evolution of data management in the Columbia Basin.

4. Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing monitoring data and associated evaluation methods for answering key questions at various spatial scales concerning the state of ecosystems and fish habitat, as well as fish distributions, stock status and responses to management actions.

5. Collaboratively design  improved monitoring and evaluation methods that will fill information gaps and provide better answers to these questions in the future, by providing state and tribal fish agency participation and work products for multi-agency development of regionally co-ordinated monitoring programs. (CSMEP has conducted 2 interagency design workshops in FY04 and intends to continue to use this approach in FY05.)

6. Coordinate state and tribal participation and work products for regionally co-ordinated, multi-agency implementation of pilot projects or large scale monitoring programs.

7. Participate in regional forums to evaluate new monitoring program results, assess new ability to answer key questions, propose revisions to monitoring approaches, and coordinate proposed changes with regional monitoring programs.

CSMEP was developed through an iterative process from April 2002 to August 2003, and its evolution is described in several documents (hyperlinks provided below):
1. The original proposal submitted to the ISRP, and associated presentation;
2. The positive initial ISRP review of CSMEP, (Aug. 2 2002), which recommended integrating various other projects with CSMEP;
3. The follow-up response by CBFWA to ISRP comments;
4. The very positive final ISRP review of CSMEP (Nov. 5, 2002);
5. A draft Work Plan for 2003, distributed on Dec. 5, 2002; and
6. A ‘Skeleton Work Plan', developed through discussions with BPA, NOAAF, USFWS, CBFWA, ODFW, IDFG, NPCC and Tribes during March and April of 2003.
7. Final work plan for FY 2004 (August 2003).
The above documents were developed in the order listed, and represent a gradual elaboration of the project, with a greater emphasis on moving beyond the design of Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) to collaborative implementation and evaluation of monitoring results. This elaboration of the program occurred in response to comments from the ISRP, NOAAF, USFWS, and BPA, as well as further scrutiny by other member CBFWA agencies. However, the original thrust and focus of the program remains consistent with the original proposal approved by the ISRP and CBFWA.
The evolution of CSMEP has continued in FY04. Each quarterly work plan has been developed in consultation with other technical and programmatic entities to ensure there is no duplication of effort in work tasks and products. Progress during FY 2004 is summarised in the quarterly progress reports. These and other CSMEP work products can be found on the CSMEP web site.
The focus of this Work Plan is on the technical tasks proposed under CSMEP and the co-ordination with programmatic entities required for those technical tasks to be accomplished. These tasks are listed in the third column of Table 1.1. The project also includes the required interactions of technical personnel with programmatic entities to resolve issues in the middle column.

The definition of programmatic and policy responsibilities for M&E is still under discussion in various forums. Thus the consultative requirements for CSMEP may continue to evolve with changes in the programmatic / policy landscape. Coordination between PNAMP and CSEMP is of particular importance. This has occurred during FY04 through overlapping membership and specific meetings, but will become stronger in FY05 with more intensive efforts to sculpt well-integrated work plans.
CSMEP will maintain the practice of ensuring that CBFWA Technical Work Groups under this contract will have clear definition of the existing or new entities that should be consulted for technical and / or programmatic co-ordination. Steps will need to be taken to formalize these working relationships, and stimulate true collaboration among a variety of groups that may have partially overlapping responsibilities. In turn, these programmatic entities will have a policy level group (possibly an RME Council with participation by federal, state, tribal and other entities) to whom they will report.
CSMEP is intended to provide a collaborative integration of M&E activities across the Basin, in response to both the NOAAF and USFWS Biological Opinions, as well as the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. It is also intended that CSMEP work products do not duplicate efforts by existing entities. 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. The entities forming PNAMP originally had a focus on monitoring watershed condition, but have since grown to include modules for effectiveness monitoring, fish population monitoring, and data coordination. CSMEP brings to PNAMP strong representation from Columbia Basin state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies, which complements the other PNAMP participating entities (i.e. WA State Salmon Recovery Funding Board, BPA, OWEB, ID Office of Species Conservation, CA NW Forest Plan Monitoring Program, BoR, EPA, Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, USFS, BLM, Federal Caucus RME Program).
• NPCC Fish and Wildlife 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 FCRPS1,  and the Federal Caucus' Basinwide Recovery Strategy. (1This includes RPAs 180, 183, 185-190, 191-193, 195, and 198)
• NOAAF Recovery Planning Technical Recovery Teams 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.2 (2ESSA is also facilitating the USFWS RMEG and Paul Wilson of USFWS is participating in CSMEP)
• 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.