Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Project Number:
2008-507-00
Title:
CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Summary:
a. Abstract

The remand of 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) including 19 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin (Revised pursuant to court order, NWF v. NMFS, Civ. No. CV 01-640-RE D. Oregon), in conjunction with the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, US v. Oregon, and the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST); set forth ambitious goals for the restoration of salmon and steelhead stretching from the wilderness forests of Idaho to the international waters off the Alaskan coast. The Tribal Data Network’s (TDN) primary goal is to ensure the availability and sharing of accurate and timely data among CRITFC-member tribes and with other agencies to meet the reporting needs of the Accords and BiOps while also building capacity within tribes to support informed policy management decisions. The Tribal Data Network will facilitate decision support for implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, tribal co-management needs with regard to US v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

The Tribal Data Network will assist the tribes in carrying out tribal management responsibilities. It will assist tribal fisheries managers in monitoring and evaluating natural habitats, anadromous fish production, anadromous fish passage, and other critical performance metrics found in the Accords and BiOps.

b. Technical and/or scientific background

The need for more effective sharing of fisheries and associated natural resource information among resource managers in the Columbia Basin has been recognized at least since 1988 (CIS 1988, MEG 1990). Progress since then has been slow, but has accelerated recently through various interagency groups (NED 2004-2007; PNAMP 2004-present; NWEIS 2007-present including the Northwest Environmental Information Sharing Executive Summit of May 8th 2008). Throughout the activities and reports from these groups, the value of, and lack of access to, tribal fisheries and habitat data has been recognized as a critical information gap for informing regional resource management decisions. Additional monitoring and reporting requirements under the Endangered Species Act and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords make access to tribal natural resource data increasingly important.

The specific reporting metrics are nearing final development and will include the primary data necessary to derive estimates of adult escapement abundance, life stage survival estimates, fish distribution, life history trajectories, and changes in habitat conditions. These metrics are described in general terms in Table 2. More detailed descriptions of the metrics and sampling locations can be found in the Accords and NOAA monitoring guidance documents. These primary and derived data will have to be structured in such a way that they can be compared across populations and watersheds, and rolled up from fine to broader spatial scales. The scales will include reach, stream, watershed, population, major population group (MPG), and ESU level aggregations.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
Data Management
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Upper Willamette River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Deschutes Subbasin
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Sockeye - Other
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Willamette River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 33.4%   Resident: 33.3%   Wildlife: 33.3%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $491,301 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Extensions (CRITFC) 10/4/2018 10/04/2018
FY2019 Expense $27 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Fish Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR, CRITFC) 6/18 06/19/2019
FY2019 Expense $2,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Fish Accord Transfers - 12/4/19 CRITFC 12/04/2019
FY2019 Expense $2,000 To: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 06/02/20 06/02/2020
FY2020 Expense $428,315 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Extensions (CRITFC) 10/4/2018 10/04/2018
FY2020 Expense $86,917 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 06/02/20 06/02/2020
FY2020 Expense $2,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 06/02/20 06/02/2020
FY2021 Expense $437,340 From: Fish Accord - LRT - CRITFC Accord Extensions (CRITFC) 10/4/2018 10/04/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2019 $166,534 25%
2018 $166,534 27%
2017 $166,534 26%
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012 $3,000 1%
2011
2010
2009
2008

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
73354 REL 31 SOW Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2008-507-00 EXP CRITFC INTER-TRIBAL MONITORING DATA Issued $491,328 9/15/2019 - 9/14/2020
73354 REL 47 SOW Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2008-507-00 EXP CRITFC INTER-TRIBAL MONITORING DATA Issued $517,232 9/15/2020 - 9/14/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:44
On time:28
Avg Days Early:1

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
43692 49055, 54190, 58576, 63000, 66762, 70127, 73789, 77134, 73354 REL 12, 73354 REL 31, 73354 REL 47 200850700 EXP TRIBAL DATA NETWORK Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 09/2009 09/2009 Issued 44 130 0 0 8 138 94.20% 1
Project Totals 44 130 0 0 8 138 94.20% 1


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2008-507-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

Qualifications:

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe their responses to the ISRP's comments and suggestions below in their upcoming annual report covering FY 2019 accomplishments.

1.      Objectives need to be quantitative with specific timelines for attaining clearly stated milestones and criteria for success.

2.      Provide an Adaptive Management (AM) process description for ISRP review.

3.      Provide the ISRP documentation on the project mission and out-year work plan, i.e., the plan developed to guide future activities. The documentation needs to include the strategic approach or activity list, as well as the timeline to support multi-year implementation.

4.      The proponents adequately addressed some qualifications from the previous ISRP review(2012-6), but some were not addressed. The ISRP would like to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and possibly Qualifications 2 and 4) from the previous (2012-6) review in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have been met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished as long as there is a common understanding of what is expected.

Comment:

This project is challenging in that it provides support for upgrading and enhancing data management for a group of tribes with varying degrees of support and enthusiasm for the effort. It appears that there has been major progress and that it has resulted in tribal members' active participation and data sharing with broader regional efforts. The broader efforts include implementation of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, recovery planning under the ESA, tribal co-management needs regarding U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Although designed as an interim project, funding reductions are likely to extend the time needed for full implementation. The ISRP notes that that data management is a full-time effort and requires an appropriate level of financial support.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The proposal includes a strong and clearly stated goal that centers around effective data management, and the text has a comprehensive and explicit explanation of what effective data management means. The proponents appear to have the technical expertise and appropriate leadership to execute the activities to achieve the goal. However, some objectives are not written in a way that progress toward them can be evaluated. Simple changes from words like "ensure" or "enhance" toward more measurable goals could help. With that said, some of the text beneath the objectives did provide measurable objectives, so it may just be a proposal structure issue. For instance, "Facilitate routine (e.g.; 6 times per year) ITMD coordination phone calls between tribal data stewards and attend occasional (e.g.; once per year) site visits to share information and transfer technology." Nevertheless, as stated, the objectives (p. 5) are very general and lack timelines for completion. They are really work statements rather than quantifiable objectives.

The text on significance to regional programs clearly defines that the project is a resource to help the Tribes manage and share data. The proposal does indicate that the project is responsive to some other efforts in the basin (e.g., BiOp), but (appropriately) does not attempt to extend project significance more broadly to all efforts across the basin.

Overall, the ISRP believes that the project is highly relevant to member tribes as well as to other regional data management programs. The proponents have the technical skills to be successful. Nevertheless, the ISRP is concerned whether the project is threatened by personnel issues (p. 16) without having adequate funding to acquire and retain skilled staff, to train and educate staff (continuing education and conferences), and to overcome the difficulties in recruiting skilled professionals to remote tribal locations.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The project has provided important support and encouragement for improving member Tribes' data management and information sharing capabilities. It has resulted in a wide range of deliverables ranging from increased infrastructure development, improved coordination and communication, and enhanced data transfer support. A major accomplishment occurred in 2018. With the help of an EPA grant, the tribes were able to install centralized data management systems and load a limited number of data sets.

The project has enabled data sharing for important regional projects including recovery plans and U.S. v. Oregon. Although the project is intended as an interim effort, it is limited by the need for improved data management staffing. Two tribes now have full time data stewards who are rapidly acquiring data management skills. The remaining tribes have identified individuals for the role of a part time data steward despite the proponent's observation that a part-time steward is not sufficient to fully support tribal fisheries programs.

The ISRP notes that a project mission and out-year work plan has been developed to guide future activities. However, there is no mention of any documentation of a strategic approach or activity list and timeline to support multi-year implementation. The ISRP mentions this because the proponents do not feel that this project needs an adaptive management (AM) process. The proposal states, "The ITMD project is not the type of project that requires an adaptive management plan of its own per the specific definition." It does acknowledge that the "project does adapt to ever changing policy guidance on data management from the tribes, CRITFC, and Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resource management programs." Despite lacking an AM process, there is an excellent discussion of lessons learned and recommendations for change contained in the 2018 Annual Report. Nevertheless, the ISRP feels that the project could improve efficiency by having a clearly articulated AM process for both internal and external issues.

The ISRP was pleased to see that "At the close of 2018, all the tribes and CRITFC possess the required infrastructure to be able to share data regionally. Experiments in uploading and downloading data have taken place to several regional repositories. The expectation is that by the close of 2019 some tribal and CRITFC data will be available across the region." This is a very positive development.

As well, the ISRP supports the continued efforts made toward training personnel and seeing that each tribe has the technology and skills to successfully participate in the data management project. The proponents understand that a serious threat toproject success (p. 17) is not having adequately trained personnel and have established a process for maintaining that expertise over time.

While the proponents provided honest responses to previous (2012-6) ISRP qualifications, it would be good to discuss Qualifications No. 1 and No. 3 (and perhaps Nos. 2 and 4) in a face-to-face meeting. No. 1 relates to objectives being restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks and No. 3 relates to defining the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have met specified milestones. The ISRP believes that these can be accomplished if there is a common understanding of what is expected.

The ISRP agrees only in part with the statement (p. 13) that "Good decisions are based on quality of data, quantity of data (over space and time), and on real-time data flowing quickly through data management systems (for those decisions that require a quick turn-around time)." We also believe that good decisions are based on appropriate analyses of good information and having the experience to interpret the results accurately (wisdom). The overall impression is that abundant data are being collected by each Tribe and processed through the project, but less emphasis is given to analyses and interpretations. In the future, the proponents should add analysis and interpretation to the training of skill sets.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

The project is guided by the overall data management strategies developed for each of the Tribes and CRITFC. The ISRP notes that "Since the last ISRP review, the project has been gradually transitioning from supporting individual project data systems to more common data systems to support tribe-wide and regional data sharing and reporting. This is linked to the demand for broader data sharing on a regional scale. Work types include infrastructure development, skills and technical capacity development for tribal staff, information sharing and review and application of new technical developments, most recently to support field data entry."

While the nine deliverables are quite detailed, they are generally qualitative in describing activities but not outcomes, as recommended by the 2012 ISRP review

The ISRP is concerned that several data stewards are only part-time positions. A discussion with the proponents and the Council/BPA is warranted to see if the positions can become full-time. Part-time positions, ones that have responsibilities elsewhere, do not bode well for long-term success. That said, could these positions also include responsibilities for advanced data analyses and interpretation?

The ISRP is still not completely clear on how the proposed data management activities are related to data management activities of other programs in the Basin, for example, the AEM activities proposed by the Yakama Tribe, PNAMP, StreamNet, and others. The ISRP would appreciate understanding how much database sharing and overlap occurs.

Objective 1 and Deliverable 2 (p. 24) are seriously hampered by current BPA funding rules for travel for meetings and conferences, which restrict access to continuing education opportunities. Additional support and funding for continuing education, information sharing, and outreach appears justified for this project.

Documentation Links:
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2008-507-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 3/5/2014
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Council recommendation:
Fund as proposed through FY 2013 with the following caveat:

This work should meet the needs of CRITFC members as related to program evaluation and reporting needs, as well as exploring the potential to assist non-CRTIFC tribal members. This work should evolve to provide web-service access to tribal anadromous and resident fish and aquatic habitat data collected by CRITFC members so that these data are easily available through web-services. This data-sharing and accessibility should not be limited to raw data, but also make accessible the synthesized information, such as abundance estimates, for the Council and public users. Furthermore, if the PERC moves forward, it would be expected that the Council recommendations based on the guidance from this committee would be incorporated in this work. Sponsor to participate on the PERC as requested by the Council to assist in developing recommendations of the PERC.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-507-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2008-507-00 - CRITFC Inter-Tribal Monitoring Data
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2008-507-00
Completed Date: 4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Objectives should be restated in terms of desired outcomes rather than tasks.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
All of the objectives require planning and coordination services to at least some extent, but the project proposal addressed tailored questions only for data management. Tailored questions for planning and coordination need to be addressed.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
The sponsors need to define the success criteria used to determine whether each of the five project objectives will have been met at specified milestones. The proposal should include a project evaluation plan beyond providing annual reports and holding workshops and explain what metrics will be used to assess effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
As stated in the proposal, deliverables for this project are driven by data requests, and tribal requests get priority, but the sponsors need to provide a more detailed explanation of how tribal and other requests are prioritized.
Qualification #5 - Qualification #5
The sponsors need to provide a clear description of exactly what data will be housed in the Tribal Data Network. It appears that there might be some duplication with other projects, for example DART. Will this project store and disseminate data from all tribes, that is, both CRITFC and non-CRITFC tribes, in the Columbia Basin?
Qualification #6 - Qualification #6
What are plans for checking accuracy of data? Will there be peer review of methods for analysis of data?
Qualification #7 - Qualification #7
The majority of proposed project costs (> $1 million per year) are related to staff salaries. According to the executive summary current funding covers only 1.5 FTEs, and cooperation with other projects leverages an additional 4-5 FTEs of CRITFC staff. How will the proposed shift in staff FTEs to this project affect work on other projects? The sponsors need to provide a clearer explanation of the percentages of project and individual staff time that will be devoted to each of the proposed work elements, and, if applicable, to other projects.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Project significance to regional programs and technical background were adequately addressed. Objectives are stated as tasks, for example “Providing data management services to the tribes” rather than as desired outcomes. The sponsors need to define the success criteria used to determine whether the project’s objectives have been met. The proposal uses many undefined acronyms and technical jargon, and would be improved by providing a list with definitions of acronyms and technical terminology.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The sponsors list a number of project accomplishments, but this section of the proposal would be improved by describing each result in terms of value-added, specifically with respect to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the region, results of user/member assessment of effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished, and how results of this assessment have modified previous and proposed activities over time to increase value of this work.

 The sponsors provide some useful examples of how project results are used for adaptive management.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

This is a relatively new project, initiated in FY 2009, to continue support for personnel and infrastructure to allow the CRITFC tribes to collect, house, and distribute data from the projects funded by the Accords, that is, fish and habitat monitoring data for the reservations, ceded lands, and key co-management areas.

The Tribal Data Network’s (TDN) primary goal is to ensure the availability and sharing of accurate and timely monitoring data among CRITFC member tribes and with other agencies to meet the reporting needs of the Accords and BiOp while also building capacity within tribes to support informed policy management decisions and tribal co-management needs.

Overall, the project appears to be on track to meet its objectives.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

Tribal Data Network (200850700) and StreamNet (198810804) will work synergistically to integrate data management and sharing across the Basin consistent with the Columbia River Basin Collaborative Data Sharing Strategy. What are plans for checking accuracy of data? Will there be peer review of methods for analysis of data? What are the plans for updating data, for example the CHaMP project? Will this project store and disseminate data from all tribes, that is, both CRITFC and non-CRITFC tribes, in the Columbia Basin? 

As described in the TDN 2011 workshop report, there seem to be several limiting factors related to data management, not adequately discussed in the proposal, for example, data sharing with NOAA and software/server compatibility. Although this project involves 25% coordination, tailored question for coordination were not addressed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Is it not possible to get SARs with confidence intervals directly from DART for any set of PIT tagged fish?  The sponsors stated that DART may provide some SARs.  The sponsors need to check whether estimates are the same.

It is not clear exactly what data will be housed in this Tribal Data Network; for example, is habitat data for intensively monitored watersheds from the Columbia Habitat and Monitoring Project (CHaMP) project to be included? Is this the only place where CHaMP data are stored? Later, it is stated that CHaMP data will be downloaded.

The sponsors need to describe the percentage of project time that will be devoted to work elements, explain what metrics will be used to assess effectiveness and impact of the work accomplished, describe key personnel duties on the project, including the hours they will commit to the project, and provide a more detailed description of QA/QC procedures.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:58:41 PM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Denise Kelsey Project Lead Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Zachary Penney Supervisor Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Thomas Pansky Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Chris Roe Administrative Contact Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Christine Golightly Interested Party Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Tom Iverson Interested Party Tom K Iverson Natural Resource Consulting
Brittney Oseth Interested Party Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Scott Donahue Project SME Bonneville Power Administration