1 Measuring Progress: Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council November 19, 2009 Scott Stolnack WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator.

11

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

22

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”)

33

Why Monitor?Why Monitor?

44

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

55

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)

66

77

“Fish In”

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

88

Fish In (Adults)Fish In (Adults)

Live Counts

Redd Surveys

Sockeye

Chinook

99Photo: H. Berge

1010

1111

Estimated Chinook Salmon Countat Ballard Locks, 1995 to 2009

0

5,000

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

Year

Est

imat

ed c

um

ula

tive

pas

sag

e at

L

ock

s

15 year average

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

1212

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

Cedar River Chinook Redds Above and Below Landsburg Dam

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

dd

s

Below Dam

Above Dam

2009

~30010-year average

1313WDFW

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

1414WDFW

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

1515

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.

1616

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

WDFW

1717

“Fish In”

“Fish Out”

1818

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

1919

Field Assessments

2020

Field Assessments

Physical Characteristics

Pools

Channel substrate

Wood

Channel sinuosity

Riparian Vegetation

Etc.

2121

Pools

Large wood

Channel sinuosity

Riparian cover

etc.

Chinook Productivity

Field Assessments

2222

Field Assessments

Biological Characteristics

Fish community composition

Insect community composition

2323

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

2424

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

2525

Use existing data sources to supplement local information

2626

Take existing Take existing change change analysis…analysis…

Land Cover Change

2727

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

2828

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

2929

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

3030

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

3131

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

3232

• 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)

3333

Implementation MonitoringImplementation Monitoring

Habitat Work Habitat Work ScheduleSchedule

Metrics Metrics under under developmentdevelopment

Projects

3434

Limiting Factors

3535

Implementation MonitoringImplementation MonitoringSpatial component – Cedar River

(example)

3636

Implementation MonitoringImplementation Monitoring

ProgramsPercent of Land Area Impacted by

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

87%

10%3%

Yes

No

no answer

Implementation Survey

3737

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

3838

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

3939

Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Management

Plan, Decide

Implement

Monitor

Assess

4040

Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Management

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?

4141

Adaptive ManagementAdaptive Management

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

4242

Questions?Questions?