Download 2006PractWorkshopJimGeiselmanshow.pps

Pacific Northwest
Aquatic Monitoring
Partnership
(PNAMP)
Preliminary Results of
Management Question Survey
Jim Geiselman & Jen Bayer
March 16, 2006
Rationale behind the Survey
 Seek
agency-specific confirmation that
these are the key fish and aquatic
habitat management questions of
common interest to entities in the
PNW
 Needed to facilitate the integration
and cost-sharing of these programs
for more robust and cost-effective
information targeting common needs
Objectives of the Survey
 Identify
common priorities across
entities
 Identify differences in priorities across
entities
 Inform work priorities and issues for
monitoring design, protocols, and
integration of programs
 Identify opportunities for cost-sharing
Elements of the Survey
 Seek
agency-specific confirmation that
these are the key fish and aquatic
habitat management questions of
common interest
 Identify the relative importance of
these questions
 Identify the spatial scale of importance
How the results might be used
 Facilitate
and inform coordination of
ongoing regional efforts
 Prioritization of technical efforts to
develop RM&E approaches
 Development of cost-sharing
agreements for common RM&E needs
 Prioritization or sequencing of project
funding
Who was asked to participate
 Regional
tribes, state and federal
agencies responsible for aquatic
resource decision-making
 Focused on PNAMP partners first
 All are welcome – still able to
complete the survey
Who has responded to date
Bonneville Power Administration
Bureau of Land Management
California Department of Fish and Game
Colville Confederated Tribes
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Nez Perce Tribe
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
US Army Corps of Engineers - NW Division
USDA Forest Service
WA Governor's Salmon Recovery Office
WA Office of the Interagency Committee
Yakama Nation
Anadromous Fish
3.5
Mean Ranked Importance +/- 1 STD
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Primary Question Number
Q1 Fish Status, Q2-4 Habitat, Q5-7 Hydro, Q8-11Estuary,
Q12-14 Hatcheries, Q15-17 Harvest, Q18-20 Predation
20
Resident Fish
Mean Ranked Importance +/- 1 STD
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Primary Question Number
Q1 Fish Status, Q2-4 Habitat, Q5-7 Hydro, Q8-11Estuary,
Q12-14 Hatcheries, Q15-17 Harvest, Q18-20 Predation
20
Preliminary Observations







Fish and Habitat Monitoring rated highest
importance for both A and R - high variance R
Fish Population and Habitat also had highest
number of funding agencies
Hatchery A and R and Hydro A status monitoring
rated second highest
Anadromous rated higher than Resident fish
Spatial scale of importance was very dependent
on the question
Spatial scales tributary and species were rarely
indicated as most important
Appear to have a good representation of
management questions of interest
Some Key Comments
ODEQ – Additional water quality and
aquatic bio-community questions
 IDFG/BPA/COE – Resident fish responses
apply to primary fish of concern; others
may be less important
 Colville Tribes – Additional tribal trust and
funding questions, and should capture
diversity of responses in survey summaries
 USFS/(NOAA) – Invasive species questions
 ODFW/COE – Sturgeon are anadromous

Next Steps
Additional survey
responses accepted
until April 30
 Summary report
complete by July 31

 See
www.pnamp.org
for questionnaire