This is the second status report on our progress on the contract entitled Expansion of StreamNet Database to all Anadromous Salmonid Populations in the States of California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The first status report (2/4/97) summarized the status of data to be processed as part of Task 1 of the contract. This report will update that status as well as report on the progress made on Tasks 2-4.
Status: Processing of data files submitted to us by NMFS
for processing is proceeding smoothly. A summary by state is
listed below. Table 1 shows the detailed status of each electronic
file submitted to us for inclusion in this contract.
California : NMFS data files contained approximately 140
abundance trends. Of these, 57 were new trends. We have completed
the addition of these trends to the StreamNet database. No further
action is deemed necessary.
Idaho : NMFS data files contained very few new, or updated
abundance trends. The few that are unique are being reviewed by
IDFG StreamNet personnel and will be incorporated if appropriate.
No further action is deemed necessary.
Oregon : NMFS data files contained 960 trends for various
species in Oregon. Of these, approximately 400 were 'new' trends
currently not in the StreamNet database (most in the Oregon coastal
area). We have completed the addition of these trends to the StreamNet
database. No further action is deemed necessary.
Washington: NMFS data files contained nearly 1,500 trends
for various species in Washington. Of these, approximately 600
are 'new' trends currently not in the StreamNet database (most
in Puget Sound and coastal areas). We have met with WDFW StreamNet
staff and they have agreed review these trends and incorporate
as appropriate. Review of Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead
data are complete and new trends have been incorporated as appropriate.
Puget Sound and Coastal steelhead trends have been reviewed and
incorporated as appropriate. Salmon trends outside the Columbia
Basin remain to be done.
| Data Table | |||||
| CN_TREND.DBF | |||||
| CN_DATA.DBF | |||||
| MARCHIN.DBF | |||||
| NFCHIN.DBF | |||||
| REDDCNTS.DBF | |||||
| CDFGSHIN.DBF | |||||
| NMFS_ALL.XLS | |||||
| ADLTSPCK.XLS | |||||
| ADLFTCK.XLS | |||||
| GRANDTAB.WK1 | |||||
| MILLDEER.WK1 | |||||
| DDYRCT.WK1 | |||||
| CM_TREND.DBF | |||||
| CM_DATA.DBF | |||||
| CO_TREND.DBF | |||||
| CO_DATA.DBF | |||||
| KLAMCOHO.XLS | |||||
| WCOAUC.ZIP | |||||
| CT_TREND.DBF | |||||
| CT_DATA.DBF | |||||
| PK_TREND.DBF | |||||
| PK_DATA.DBF | |||||
| Data Table | |||||
| SO_TREND.DBF | |||||
| SO_DATA.DBF | |||||
| ST_TREND.DBF | |||||
| ST_DATA.DBF | |||||
| NMFS_ALL.XLS | |||||
| MILLDEER.WK1 | |||||
| DDYRCT.WK1 | |||||
| MARSST.DBF | |||||
| MATWST. DBF | |||||
| NFSST. DBF | |||||
| NFWST. DBF | |||||
| CDFGSTHD.DBF | |||||
| ELLSTHD.DBF | |||||
| REDD_CIS.DBF | |||||
| STRESINV.ZIP | |||||
| WASTLD.XLS | |||||
| WASTLD2.XLS | |||||
Status: All 14 files containing hatchery data included
in the contract have been pre-processed into 2 consistent databases;
hatchery releases and hatchery returns. Data from NMFS files
has been re-formatted to meet StreamNet data standards and cross
checked with existing StreamNet data trends.
Hatchery Releases: As reported in the first status update,
the hatchery release dataset probably poses the largest challenge
to us in completion of this contract. The database submitted
to PSMFC from the NRC consultants contains nearly 112,000 records
for the states or OR, ID, WA, and CA. About 27% of these records
came from PSMFC's CWT database which is the primary source for
hatchery release data in StreamNet. That leaves nearly 82,000
from 'non PSMFC' sources in the NMFS database that must be processed.
It is our basic strategy at this time to use PSMFC's CWT database
for the primary source of release data from 1980 on and to use
the data from the NMFS contractors to backfill the release data
prior to 1980. This strategy varies a little from state to state
and is summarized below.
California : Utilize information from the CWT database
as the 'official' version of releases for tagged fish. Use data
from NMFS files for releases of unmarked, unassociated fish and
releases prior to data submitted to CWT database (NMFS data goes
back to 1943). Establish liaison with CDFG for verification of
data. Status : Incomplete.
Idaho : Utilize information from the CWT database as the 'official' version of releases for tagged and untagged fish from 1975 through the present. Utilize StreamNet staff at IDFG to isolate and correct inconsistencies during this time period. Use data from NMFS files for years prior to 1975 (data goes back to 1940). Status : Incomplete.
Oregon : Utilize information from the CWT database as
the 'official' version of releases for tagged and untagged fish
from 1975 through the present with the exception of unmarked,
unassociated releases prior to 1982. These will be taken from
the NMFS files as they have not been submitted to the CWT database.
Utilize StreamNet staff at ODFW to isolate and correct inconsistencies
during this time period. Use data from NMFS files for any years
prior to 1975 (data goes back to 1940). Status : Incomplete.
Washington: Utilize information from the CWT database
as the 'official' version of releases for tagged and untagged
fish from 1975 through the present with the exception of unmarked,
unassociated releases of steelhead for all years. These will be
taken from the NMFS files as they have not been submitted to the
CWT database. Utilize StreamNet staff at WDFW to isolate and
correct inconsistencies during this time period. Use data from
NMFS files for any years prior to 1974 (data goes back to 1913).
Status : Incomplete.
Hatchery Returns: The database submitted to PSMFC from
the NRC consultants contains over 13,000 return records for the
states or OR, ID, WA, and CA. We have analyzed these records
and grouped them into logical trends (defined as a group of a
particular stock returning to a particular hatchery. The table
below summarizes the status of these data. As you can see, there
are a significant number of trends in the NMFS database that are
either missing altogether in StreamNet or missing some years.
| Not in StreamNet | ||
| Missing Some Years | ||
| Not in StreamNet | ||
| Missing Some Years | ||
| Same as Streamnet | ||
| Not in StreamNet | ||
| Missing Some Years | ||
| Same as Streamnet | ||
| Not in StreamNet | ||
| Missing Some Years | ||
| Same as Streamnet |
California : Utilize information from NMFS database and
update StreamNet database. Establish liaison with CDFG for verification
of data. Status : Incomplete.
Idaho : Utilize StreamNet staff at IDFG and to error check
and incorporate data from NMFS database that is missing from StreamNet.
Status : Complete
Oregon : Utilize StreamNet staff at ODFW and to error check
and incorporate data from NMFS database that is missing from StreamNet.
Status : Incomplete.
Washington: Utilize StreamNet staff at WDFW and to error check and incorporate data from NMFS database that is missing from StreamNet. Status : Complete for Salmon in the Columbia Basin, incomplete for salmon and steelhead outside the basin and steelhead inside the basin.
Marine : Marine harvest data consists primarily of 11 large
data files from various sources. We have reviewed this data and
are in the process of setting up meetings with the appropriate
harvest managers in Oregon and Washington to determine the best
route in incorporating this data. The proposal for future updates
would be to acquire this data from the PacFin database. Status
: Incomplete.
Freshwater: Freshwater harvest data falls into 3 broad
categories: Columbia River mainstem harvest, tributary sport
harvest, and tributary tribal harvest. We have reviewed these
datasets and will proceed as follows.
Columbia River: We are in the process of setting up meetings
with the appropriate harvest managers in Oregon and Washington
to determine the most appropriate way to incorporate Columbia
River harvest data and anticipate that this will be fairly easily
accomplished. Status : The meetings have not yet occurred but
data for Columbia River harvest is complete and in the system.
Format changes may occur in the future but no more action on
this item is deemed necessary.
Tributary Sport Harvest: Washington is in the process
of updating sport harvest data for the entire state. We anticipate
that this will supersede the need to review NMFS files for Washington.
Idaho data files for harvest match StreamNet trends one for one
and will be updated only. Oregon is in the process of updating
sport harvest data for the entire state. We anticipate that this
will supersede the need to review NMFS files for Oregon. All
California data for sport harvest was obtained from StreamNet
and therefore needs no review. Status : Data is being updated
at the state level and will be incorporated as soon as possible,
no more action on this item is deemed necessary.
Treaty Freshwater Harvest: We will review these on a trend
by trend basis and add as appropriate. Status : Incomplete.
I. Work to be Accomplished
This task will update data holdings through 1995 by acquiring
new data from agency contacts and incorporating this information
into the StreamNet database.
Specific work items include:
a. Acquire and incorporate 1995 information for abundance trends
in the StreamNet database resulting from the completion of Task
1A of this proposal.
b. Acquire and incorporate 1995 information for hatchery trends
in the StreamNet database resulting from the completion of Task
1B of this proposal.
c. Acquire and incorporate 1995 information for harvest trends
in the StreamNet database resulting from the completion of Task
1C of this proposal.
Status: For all data categories we anticipate the completion of this task by the end of this fiscal year.
CONTRACTED TO: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
TIME FRAME: October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
I. Work to be Accomplished
The existing StreamNet project provides a mechanism for
data updates for the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Data compilers and coordinators in each state work together with
the regional data manager to insure regular updates of information
in a standardized format. This infrastructure is not in place
in California, however, because California is outside the geographic
scope of the current StreamNet project. This task would focus
on establishing similar mechanisms in California, as currently
exist in the StreamNet states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Status: We have not engaged in formal talks with representatives
from California at this time. However, we have established data
contacts. We will continue to explore the options available for
continued updates of information from California.
CONTRACTED TO: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
TIME FRAME: October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997
I. Work to be Accomplished
This task will provide for PSMFC and StreamNet participation
in the interagency workgroup on salmon monitoring and harvest
management reform. Participation will be especially focused on
the information needs of managers and how those needs can be met
by the various data activities coordinated through PSMFC.
Status: This group has not been formed (to our knowledge)
and we have not done any work on this task.
Progress on the contract is proceeding as scheduled. We anticipate the completion of the contract well within the timelines specified and, in all likelihood, considerably under the budget for the project. We would potentially like to explore additional data items to examine during this contract period, and would also like to explore the options for some continued level of funding into the future.