A positive unintended outcome was observed during site visits of habitat restoration projects where improved salmon habitat also unintendedly contributed to supporting other species at risk, such as the Salish Sucker.
Finding: SEP is successful in developing new and innovative projects which lead to the sharing of best practices and lessons learned.
However, communication of these lessons with external stakeholders could be improved. In , SEP developed an Infrastructure Strategy which is viewed as an innovative practice within the department and mentioned as a best practice by several key informants. The Infrastructure Strategy has been used by management to guide decision making regarding program assets. The purpose of these guides is to provide regionally consistent approaches to monitoring fish production activities at facilities licensed under PAR.
Stakeholders expressed their satisfaction with the guide and mentioned that as a result, they are more vigilant with respect to fish health protocols. Innovative efficiencies have also been implemented in some major hatcheries, such as hydro powered micro-generation, cooperation with local industry, use of geo-thermal heat sources, high efficiency lighting, etc. Therefore, SEP could improve on communicating and sharing lessons learned with the larger stakeholder community.
Finding: The program is successful in collecting and using data with respect to fish production. As such, improved documentation and data collection highlighting how the different components of the program e.
SEP collects large amounts of data regarding fish production. Examples of data collected are production site, species produced, target release, actual release, release stage, release site, etc.
Of the staff members who use this software, the majority said the databases meet their information needs to a fair or great extent. According to a review of PIP contracts, there is no systematic method of collecting performance data. In addition, the review noted that PIP application forms vary by Area, by community advisor and by fiscal year. In addition, PIPs are not required to provide reports upon project completion in order to report on performance and achievement of objectives.
The review of contracts did demonstrate that some PIPs did provide completion reports. However, the program confirmed that this is not a requirement outlined in the contract agreements and is not a common practice. With respect to the Stream to Sea Program, data is also inconsistently collected and reported across all Areas. Each Community Advisor collects slightly different data and does not report in a consistent way in the program directory. In , the program started using a survey method in order to collect data on the Salmonids in the Classroom program.
However, participation is voluntary, thus not representative of the entire program. Overall, data supporting stewardship and educational components of the program are collected in an inconsistent manner. This information is needed to assist in demonstrating to elected officials, senior management and other interested Canadians whether a program is achieving its intended outcomes in support of a departmental strategic outcome.
It was observed during the evaluation that SEP staff are very knowledgeable about the program logic model. The document is well known by staff and used frequently. The documents have also been updated as part of a department wide initiative on development and implementation of performance measurement strategies for all DFO programs. Despite these efforts to create, maintain and implement an effective performance measurement strategy, it became evident in the course of the evaluation that the logic model requires further adjustments, as do most of the performance indicators.
For example, the public education and awareness component of the program is not captured as a program outcome, but rather as an output, making it difficult to measure through performance indicators. The program has been collecting performance data through several means and for different reporting purposes, such as the Departmental Performance Report DPR , Report on Plans and Priorities RPP , performance measurement strategy, etc.
As indicated in the DPR, the program used the SEP infrastructure strategy to guide major capital planning, prioritization, and decision-making about infrastructure e.
Nevertheless, these indicators may require updating by DFO, as previously noted in the evaluation, in order to ensure better alignment with SEP objectives. However, this indicator has proven to be an ineffective measure of habitat restoration, as smaller projects with critical habitat components may have a much larger effect than bigger projects with greater square meter coverage.
The TBSEF is also required to provide an annual report at the end of each fiscal year outlining the achievements of the Foundation. Yet, the annual reports do not report on the indicators that were established in the contribution agreement. It is important to note however that DFO does provide input into the annual work plan and provides approval. This section covers a broad range of topics, such as governance, resources, roles and responsibilities, design and delivery and priorities.
During the timeframe covered by the scope of the evaluation, the program was under an Area matrix management model which means that the regional management team does not functionally manage the delivery of the program in the Areas.
This structure creates challenges in uniformity among Areas and in delivering on priorities that differ from one Area to another. On the other hand, the Area matrix model provides an opportunity to respond to Area-specific needs. Some employees through the survey suggested that Area-based management may work for some DFO sectors, but is not the best model for SEP. In their opinion, SEP should move away from an Area matrix model to a centralized delivery and reporting model for the entire program.
Some employees mentioned that leadership is lacking and there is a need for a global direction to be communicated to all employees with clear directions to ensure consistency in the delivery of the program. Moreover, it was mentioned that Regional Headquarters is disconnected from the Areas which is problematic and that communication is also an issue. Finally, there is little connection with other SEP staff around the province and each Area tends to work independently.
In fact, in the Strategic Direction of program elements of SEP, it is mentioned that the program will develop priorities linked directly to fisheries management and stock assessment priorities and provide examples that demonstrate how this will be done. During the period reviewed, the budget was allocated every year across Areas and Regional Headquarters. As part of the implementation of the Pacific Region Asset Class Strategy, Real Property, Safety and Security and SEP Regional staff will establish a document that identifies the respective roles, responsibilities and accountability of each group for the management and maintenance of SEP infrastructure sites.
The evaluation was unable to find evidence of clear roles and responsibilities for CAs. Therefore, the way in which CAs deliver the program varies from one CA to another. Comments provided in the employee survey suggested the need to provide priorities and limits to the work CAs are able to undertake in a meaningful way. It was expressed in the stakeholder survey that respondents greatly appreciate the support and expertise provided by CAs.
However, some stakeholders suggested that technical expertise to enhancement facilities should be provided by SEP major facilities staff instead of CAs. It is important to note that technical expertise and other support is provided in many cases from major facilities to PIPs and CEDPs which is usually coordinated by local CAs. Community Advisors often help ultimate recipients prepare their proposals.
Systematically, SEP employees are involved in the selection process by reviewing all potential projects and providing advice on the feasibility of each project as well as alignment with SEP priorities.
Finally, some employees continue to provide advice and technical expertise during the implementation of the projects. Among respondents that provided comments, it was mentioned that technical expertise exists outside DFO but it would increase costs significantly to use private contractors. It was also suggested that PSF could build its own in-house technical expertise.
SEP priorities are established annually. Clear communication of SEP priorities would help ensure a consistent delivery of the program throughout all areas. The program has existed for more than 35 years. Many of the respondents have therefore been with the program for more than twenty years which shows stability and deep knowledge and expertise as well as building long term relationships with stakeholders. However, a large portion of employees are close to retirement and staffing is challenging.
There is also limited knowledge dissemination from more experienced employees to new employees. Due to financial constraints, difficulties in staffing, inconsistencies in the delivery, unclear roles and priorities, SEP should determine which activities are core versus non-core and adjust the delivery of its activities accordingly. Examples provided through the employee survey highlighted the need to establish clear priorities in Resources Restoration Units, where some employees suggested that work should be centralized.
In addition, more strategic focus on habitat restoration projects was suggested by some survey respondents, as these projects have the potential to play a greater role in salmon enhancement over hatchery production. The importance of habitat restoration was also raised during the site visits. Finding: A number of efficiencies have already been implemented by the program but there is still room for improvement.
SEP could not achieve the same results without additional funding received through other sources. According to SEP employees, the program has been greatly efficient in fish production and public stewardship education and awareness activities.
A number of efficiencies have already been identified and initiated by the program. Cost-saving initiatives have been implemented in several major facilities, such as system monitoring technology allowing for reductions in on-site stand-by , hydro-powered micro-generation, use of geo-thermal heat, high efficiency lighting, etc.
The Kitimat Hatchery, for example, at one time was supplied by surplus heat generated by the neighbouring pulp mill to heat hatchery water. Both stakeholder and employee survey respondents are of the opinion that SEP could improve on issues of communication.
Areas for improvement include communication between Regional Headquarters and Areas and vice versa , communication within areas, communication with other DFO Sectors, and communication between SEP and stakeholders. As mentioned in the section, there is significant funding dedicated to salmon in the Pacific Region.
Although some discussions occur in different committees and the Areas are aware of the projects funded, a greater coordination could be beneficial as sometimes one project could be detrimental to the efforts made by other programs. Further assessment of this initiative by SEP staff Community Advisor and Resource Restoration biologist and engineer revealed that removal of the dam would have resulted in destabilization of the watercourse upstream of the dam resulting in potential damage to fish habitat and private property.
Community advisors, restoration staff, and even hatcheries are highly successful at leveraging 3rd party funding from different sources. In return, these volunteer organizations are required to supplement their budgets by fund-raising or by applying for funding assistance through other programs. For example, Seymour Hatchery secured matching funding from Metro Vancouver. Moreover, SEP leverages funds through its major facilities. The Quinsam River Hatchery also established collaborative agreements with several organizations in exchange for services provided by the Hatchery.
The majority of employee survey respondents indicated that SEP could not achieve the same results without additional funding received through other sources. It may vary from actual expenditures.
In early , an amendment to the contribution agreement was made requiring the return of funds at the end of the term of the Agreement. Although several efficiencies have already been implemented by the program, the infrastructure strategy establishes ten next steps as part of its implementation, many of which are related to further or potential efficiencies.
The efficiencies identified are:. Examples of new or different technologies include: the use of high efficiency pumps with variable frequency drive, water recirculation systems where applicable , circular fiberglass rearing containers with covers instead of open raceways and ponds, web applications on smart phones for data collection by volunteers, and DNA marking to enable more accurate estimates of enhanced contributions to the Wild Salmon Policy.
These suggestions included amalgamating or transferring fish production of some CEDPs to major facilities, revisiting the governance model employed for non-production aspects of the program, and keeping partners more regularly informed of program changes to increase the likelihood of stakeholder support and buy-in.
Finding: A number of cost-effective alternatives were raised, such as identifying core versus non-core activities, determining the added value of some contracts and streamlining the process, and exploring cost-sharing opportunities for the production of Steelhead and Cutthroat trout species. As previously noted, the program should consider identifying core and non-core activities in order to increase cost-effectiveness.
For example, the Quinsam major hatchery hosts a visitor education centre where patrons can learn more about salmon and their habitat. SEP staff time and effort is also questioned regarding fish production in community involvement facilities considering their minimal contribution to overall fish production.
In fact, CEDPs represent 4. A review of core and non-core activities with respect to fish production and community involvement could help the program focus on key priorities. This review would also allow the streamlining of the logic model, its activities and its outcomes. The identification of core versus non-core activities may also be helpful for SEP in moving forward with Steelhead and Cutthroat trout production. The evaluation found possible cost-sharing opportunities for SEP for the production of Steelhead and Cutthroat species.
The signed agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the Federal Government sets out funding responsibilities for the two levels of government. The evaluation found no evidence that there has been an exchange of funds for the production of Steelhead and Cutthroat trout species. Specifically, the sport fishing of these species in non-tidal waters is managed by the province of BC. This alternative was strongly supported by employee survey respondents, key informants and during site visits.
In addition, the education and awareness components of the program may be revisited considering that consistent efforts made over the past 35 years has contributed to salmon becoming an icon in BC. Streamlining of contracts may also help SEP achieve its goals in a more efficient manner. For example, PIP contracts are currently awarded to community involvement groups through their local Community Advisor. Community Advisors can also award contracts for the provision of technical expertise in community involvement facilities and for carrying out educational components in local schools.
Given the expertise that already exists within SEP and the number of schools already engaged, the added value of these types of contracts is questioned. SEP, through an agreement with the Province of British Columbia, is producing Steelhead and Cutthroat trout species at its hatcheries but the management of these species is shared between the federal government and the province of British Columbia governments.
As well, the contribution agreement with T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation activities ultimately leads to an improved marine ecosystem, thus supporting healthy salmon stocks. Improved documentation and data collection on how the many components of the program e.
SEP would benefit from communicating clear directions to ensure consistency in delivery throughout Area offices. Recommendation 3 : An agreement between the province of British Columbia and the federal government set out funding responsibilities for the two levels of government.
However, the evaluation found no evidence that there has been an exchange of funds for the production of Steelhead and Cutthroat trout species. Because the responsibility of these species is shared between the federal and provincial government, it is recommended that the RDG, Pacific Region, advance the cost-sharing opportunities between DFO and the province of British Columbia with respect to the production of Steelhead and Cutthroat trout species.
Recommendation 5 : Considering the importance of habitat in achieving sustainability of resources in the longer term and that the evaluation found no clear strategy or vision related to the rebuilding of salmon habitat within SEP, it is recommended that the RDG, Pacific Region, develop a habitat restoration strategy for SEP.
Once supported it will then be implemented and will formally limit the roles of DFO staff. Did SEP have any unintended results?
If so, is it being used for decision-making? To what extent are the program's activities, structures and processes appropriate to support the achievement of results? Are there alternative, more cost-effective ways of achieving program goals? Report a problem or mistake on this page.
Please select all that apply: A link, button or video is not working. It has a spelling mistake. Information is missing. Information is outdated or wrong. Login error when trying to access an account e. My Service Canada Account. I can't find what I'm looking for. Other issue not in this list. Limited evidence that vulnerable species are supported. First Nation, local communities and external parties participate in cooperative fisheries and stewardship activities.
Healthy and diverse salmon populations and sustainable marine and freshwater ecosystems provide harvest opportunities and support a stronger Canadian economy The long-term outcome covers different aspects that were assessed separately:. However, the study was limited to British Columbia and did not cover the Yukon and a more recent version does not exist. Evidence of the needs of Canadians regarding SEP.
Have they changed over time? Evidence of the needs of Canadians regarding the contribution agreements. Evidence that SEP is unique, duplicates or is complementary to other programs Key informant and survey respondents opinions. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.
Report a problem or mistake on this page. Please select all that apply: A link, button or video is not working. It has a spelling mistake. Information is missing. Information is outdated or wrong.
Login error when trying to access an account e. Salmonid Enhancement Program Our Salmonid Enhancement Program SEP aims to rebuild vulnerable salmon stocks, provide harvest opportunities, work with Indigenous and coastal communities in economic development, and improve fish habitat to sustain salmon populations.
Most requested Fish hatcheries Community projects Where and when to see salmon Stream to sea education program. Salmonid enhancement Learn about salmonid enhancement in BC and the Yukon.
0コメント