1 Measuring Progress: Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council November...

transcript

Measuring Progress:Measuring Progress: Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8

WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Salmon Salmon

Recovery Recovery CouncilCouncil

November 19, 2009November 19, 2009

Scott Stolnack

WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator

Purpose of this Purpose of this presentation:presentation:

Update SRC on the overall Update SRC on the overall framework of monitoring in WRIA 8framework of monitoring in WRIA 8

What we monitor and whyWhat we monitor and why How it all fits togetherHow it all fits together

Introduce how this information Introduce how this information can be used to help define our can be used to help define our future course (“adaptive future course (“adaptive management”)management”)

Why Monitor?Why Monitor?

Science-based Chinook Science-based Chinook Conservation Plan Conservation Plan requires monitoring:requires monitoring:

Measure and document progress toward Measure and document progress toward salmon recovery and habitat restoration goalssalmon recovery and habitat restoration goals

Assure $$ is spent on actions that make a Assure $$ is spent on actions that make a differencedifference

Provide information to guide course Provide information to guide course corrections, if (when) neededcorrections, if (when) needed

What do we need to know?What do we need to know?

Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? (“Fish in/Fish Out” Status and Trends Monitoring)(“Fish in/Fish Out” Status and Trends Monitoring)

Are watershed conditions improving or declining? Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)(Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)

Are we doing what we said we’d do? Are we doing what we said we’d do? (Implementation Monitoring)(Implementation Monitoring)

Is what we said we’d do, doing what we said it Is what we said we’d do, doing what we said it would? (Effectiveness Monitoring)would? (Effectiveness Monitoring)

“Fish In”

“Fish Out”Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? (“Fish in/Fish Out” Status and Trends Monitoring)

Fish In (Adults)Fish In (Adults)

Live Counts

Redd Surveys

Sockeye

Chinook

99Photo: H. Berge

Estimated Chinook Salmon Countat Ballard Locks, 1995 to 2009

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

15 year average

Fish In – How Many?Fish In – How Many?

Cedar River Chinook Redds Above and Below Landsburg Dam

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Below Dam

Above Dam

~30010-year average

1313WDFW

Fish Out (Smolt trapping)Fish Out (Smolt trapping)

1414WDFW

Fish Out (Smolt trapping)Fish Out (Smolt trapping)

Juvenile production is basically what Juvenile production is basically what the WRIA is responsible for. This is the WRIA is responsible for. This is how we can tell how we’re doing. how we can tell how we’re doing. Everything else is needed to be able Everything else is needed to be able to reliably track this knowledge.to reliably track this knowledge.

Fish Out (PIT Tagging)Fish Out (PIT Tagging)

“Fish In”

“Fish Out”

Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)

Field Assessments

Physical Characteristics

Channel substrate

Channel sinuosity

Riparian Vegetation

Large wood

Channel sinuosity

Riparian cover

Chinook Productivity

Field Assessments

Biological Characteristics

Fish community composition

Insect community composition

Field Assessments

Objective is to describe current Objective is to describe current STATUSSTATUS and detect and detect TRENDSTRENDS over time over time

Stream surveys begun 2009Stream surveys begun 2009 Funded through 2010Funded through 2010 Cedar River survey scheduled for 2010 Cedar River survey scheduled for 2010

(King County)(King County)

Seeking EPA funding to continue this work Seeking EPA funding to continue this work beyond 2010beyond 2010

Land Cover Change

Overall guidelines:Overall guidelines:

Adapt existing sources of Adapt existing sources of information where information where appropriateappropriate

Focus on highest priority Focus on highest priority areas firstareas first

Use existing data sources to supplement local information

Take existing Take existing change change analysis…analysis…

Land Cover Change

Isolate forest Isolate forest cover change…cover change…

Focus in on Focus in on most crucial most crucial areas for a areas for a closer lookcloser look

Land Cover Change

Analysis is just beginning using NOAA Analysis is just beginning using NOAA change classification and 2006 change classification and 2006 satellite photossatellite photos

Funded by a grant from the EPA Funded by a grant from the EPA through the Puget Sound Partnershipthrough the Puget Sound Partnership

Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)

Development alters watershed Development alters watershed hydrology (runoff intensity and hydrology (runoff intensity and timing)timing)

Affects worsened by poor riparian Affects worsened by poor riparian conditionsconditions

Trends over time revealTrends over time revealchanging watershed changing watershed conditionsconditions

Flow Characteristics

Existing gauge data needs to be Existing gauge data needs to be analyzed for trendsanalyzed for trends Winter high flows – higher highs?Winter high flows – higher highs? Summer low flows – lower lows?Summer low flows – lower lows? Changes in overall timing?Changes in overall timing? Create predictive computer models for Create predictive computer models for

places without flow gaugesplaces without flow gauges Seeking funding through EPA grantSeeking funding through EPA grant

Flow Characteristics

• Are we doing what we said we’d do?

(Implementation Monitoring)

• Is what we said we’d do, doing what we said it would? (Effectiveness Monitoring)

Implementation MonitoringImplementation Monitoring

Habitat Work Habitat Work ScheduleSchedule

Metrics Metrics under under developmentdevelopment

Projects

Limiting Factors

Implementation MonitoringImplementation MonitoringSpatial component – Cedar River

(example)

Implementation MonitoringImplementation Monitoring

ProgramsPercent of Land Area Impacted by

Existing Low Impact Development (LID) Regulations (as a Component of Stormwater Regulations)

no answer

Implementation Survey

Are our actions having the desired effect? Do levee setbacks increase juvenile

survival rates? Do LID programs reduce stormwater

runoff? Does outreach program X result in

behavior change in population Y?

Effectiveness MonitoringEffectiveness Monitoring

Are our actions having the desired effect? Least-developed at this time Capacity issues have prevented us

from addressing up to now Regional issue (e.g., SRFB) Some questions are beyond the scope

of WRIA 8 Technical Committee will discuss in

December

Effectiveness MonitoringEffectiveness Monitoring

Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Management

Plan, Decide

Implement

Monitor

Assess

Is the sum of our actions having the Is the sum of our actions having the desired effect?desired effect?

If not, what are we going to do about If not, what are we going to do about it?it?

Regional assistance is planned for early Regional assistance is planned for early 20102010

Will tie entire monitoring framework to Will tie entire monitoring framework to course-correction frameworkcourse-correction framework

SRC will be involved SRC will be involved Through staff on Implementation CommitteeThrough staff on Implementation Committee Through direct reporting via these meetingsThrough direct reporting via these meetings

Questions?Questions?

1 Measuring Progress: Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council November...

Documents