Preliminary Results of Management Question Survey Jim Geiselman & Jen Bayer March 16, 2006

1. Pacific NorthwestAquatic Monitoring Partnership(PNAMP) Preliminary Results of Management Question Survey Jim Geiselman & Jen Bayer March 16, 2006

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Q1 Fish Status, Q2-4 Habitat, Q5-7 Hydro, Q8-11Estuary, Q12-14 Hatcheries, Q15-17 Harvest, Q18-20 Predation

9. Q1 Fish Status, Q2-4 Habitat, Q5-7 Hydro, Q8-11Estuary, Q12-14 Hatcheries, Q15-17 Harvest, Q18-20 Predation

10. 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

11. 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

12. Next Steps • Additional survey responses accepted until April 30 • Summary report complete by July 31 • See www.pnamp.org for questionnaire