CSMEP Goal: Improve the quality and consistency of fish monitoring data,

1. CSMEP Survey of Monitoring Questions CSMEP Goal: Improve the quality and consistency of fish monitoring data, and the methods used to evaluate these data, to answer key questions relevant to major decisions in the Columbia Basin.

2. For listed salmon, steelhead, bull trout and other fishes of concern: Status and trends monitoring Action effectiveness monitoring: Habitat Hatchery Harvest Hydrosystem

3. CSMEP Survey of Monitoring Questions

4. Species Bull trout Coho Steelhead Sockeye Fall Chinook Sp/Su Chinook

5. Spatial Scales Sub-Pop → Population → MPG → ESU → CRB

6. Questions Ecosystem, Population and Habitat Status Action Effectiveness for Habitat, Harvest, Hatchery, Hydrosystem Bull trout Coho Steelhead Sockeye Fall Chinook Sp/Su Chinook

7. Response – IDFG, S/S Chinook 1. Distribution of fishes 2. Status of fishes 3. Population size 4. Population growth rate 5. Freshwater productivity 6. Age structure 7. Hatchery fraction 8. Spawn frequency (resident fishes) 9. Life history type(s) 10. Biological condition of spawning and rearing habitat 11. Chemical water quality ofspawning and rearing habitat 12. Physical condition of spawning and rearing habitat 13. Habitat: Effectiveness of specific habitat projects on fish populations 14. Habitat: Effectiveness of multiple habitat projects on fish populations 15. Habitat: Effectiveness of particular classes of habitat projects 16. Habitat: Connections between habitat actions and population responses 17. Habitat: Effectiveness of habitat projects on habitat conditions 18. Harvest: What are pre-season and in-season estimates of run size and escapement 19. Harvest: What is the target and non-target harvest/ when will they be achieved 20. Hatcheries: Meeting harvest goals without adverse impacts 21. Hatcheries: Enhancing viability of natural populations without adverse impacts 22. Hatcheries: Conserving genetic legacy of imperiled fish 23. Hydro: Smolt-to-adult survival rates meet recovery goals 24. Hydro: Compliance with 2000 FCRPS BiOp performance standards 25. Hydro: Comparative survival for different species and groups 26. Hydro: Effect of various management actions on survival 27. Hydro: Do removable spillway weirs improve survival

8. ODFW Unweighted Weighted

9. Respondents Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Coeur d’Alene Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation Nez Perce Tribe Yakama Indian Nation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

10. Ranking of species Across agencies By each agency

11. Mean (unweighted) SD High SD = disagreement

12. Tier 1 & 2. Status / Trends Anadromous (n=8) • Questions regarding broad scale status and trends rated as very important (1-7), particularly at scales of population, MPG, ESU • Regional distribution • Ecosystem status • Abundance • Population growth rate • Productivity • Age structure • Hatchery fraction of spawners • Variation in response for population and ESU scales less than sub-population and MPG scales • Questions regarding habitat rated less important (10-12) • Question regarding life history types (9) rated less important

13. Tier 1 & 2. Status / Trends Bull trout (n=10) Questions regarding broad scale status and trends rated as very important (1-6) Timing of resident species spawning (8) and life history types (9) rated important across most scales Questions regarding habitat (10-12) rated important, particularly at sub-population and population scales Population scale most important, but sub-population, MPG and ESU (DPS) scales also important Variation in response for bull trout greater than for anadromous

14. Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Anadromous (n=8) All questions regarding effectiveness of actions for all 4 H’s were deemed important at one or more scales Hatchery questions (20-22) were rated highly important at population, MPG, and ESU scales Habitat (13-17) questions most important at smaller (sub-population and population) scales, except for Sockeye Basin-scale becomes more important for harvest questions (18-19) Hydrosystem (23-27) questions most important at ESU scale

15. Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Anadromous (n=8) Importance of hydrosystem questions (23-27) showed high variability Otherwise variability was similar to that for Tier 1 and 2 questions

16. Tier 3. Action Effectiveness Bull trout (n=10) Habitat questions (13-17) most important at smaller (sub-population and population) scales Harvest questions (18-19) next most important Hatchery (20-22) and hydrosystem (23-27) questions were less important to most, but not all agencies Variability in rating of questions for all H’s except habitat is very high

17. Emerging priorities and implications Consistent importance on estimating status and trend of fish populations Variation among agencies in importance of action effectiveness monitoring reflecting diverse mandates as well as regionally varying stressors Move toward consistent basin wide approach for S&T with regionally varying M&E for action effectiveness Priorities for anadromous and resident fish species vary across agencies and questions – implies different monitoring designs