Preliminary Results of Management Question Survey

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
  RME approaches
• Development of cost-sharing agreements for common
  RME 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