1. Recommendations from the SMC Bioassessment Workgroup
Presentation to the Executive Committee
9/24/13

2. Goals of the Regional Monitoring Program
Answer three management questions:
What is the health of streams in Southern California?
By watershed
By land use type
Are conditions getting better or worse over time?
What stressors are associated with poor biological condition?

3. Successes To Date
Collected 458 samples through 2012 (2013 data in process)
Other than San Jacinto, most watersheds will have 30+ sites each
Improved coordination and efficiencies among partners
Training and auditing in multiple protocols; improved QA/QC
Ensured SoCal representation in development of multiple indices (bio-objectives, algae indices, possibly PHAB)
Provided robust dataset for many applications, including causal assessments

4. Where Are We Now?
Finished sampling the 5th and final year of the stream survey program
2014:
Conduct analyses for five-year report
Take a “year off” to explore special studies & new indicators
Agree on potential design modifications for next five year period
2015:
Publish five-year report
Initiate second phase of the stream survey using modified design

5. Tasks from the Last Executive Committee Meeting
Identify effort reductions that will free up resources without sacrificing power to detect trends
Explore projects focusing on three issues of concern:
Nonperennial streams
Causal Assessment
Hydromodification

6. Reduced Sampling Effort
Opportunity to reduce sampling effort to free up resources for special studies
Focus effort on revisiting previously sampled sites
Reduced up-front recon cost
Improves ability to detect trends over time
Caution from workgroup to not dilute overall integrity of sampling program
Recommendation
Reduce “core” sampling effort by 50%
Cost savings = $450,000 (assuming $10,000/site)

7. Nonperennial Streams
Comprise ~60% of the region’s stream miles, and over 90% in certain watersheds
Largest gap in our knowledge of regional stream health
Tools to properly assess all non-perennial streams still don’t exist
Bioassessment tools for short-term non-perennial
New CRAM module for highly ephemeral

8. Nonperennial streams

9. Nonperennial streams Recommendation:
Test new assessment tools in non-perennial reference streams
Include both intermittent and ephemeral streams
Conduct multiple visits per site to understand temporal patterns
Est. cost: $300,000 -$450,000
Highly scalable (based on # sites, samples per site, specific indicators, etc.)
Can be funded by in-kind contributions

10. Causal Assessment
Will be a required follow-up for biological objectives
Exact methodology (e.g., CADDIS) is unfamiliar to many partners
Regional program should be able to support causal assessments by:
Generating comparator data
Sharing associated costs (data management, training)
Caution from workgroup that causal assessment may be more appropriately dealt with as individual projects

11. Causal assessment Recommendation
Conduct a 1-2 day workshop to familiarize SMC staff with the causal assessment process (based on State guidance)
Encourage individual agencies to explore limited causal assessments using SMC data
Estimated cost: $20,000 - $30,000

12. Hydromodification
New permits require hydromodification monitoring and assessment
Regional monitoring program can support local programs
Regional context
Reference sites
Understanding relationship between physical effects and biology
Caution from workgroup:
Existing hydromodification assessment tools are unfamiliar
Need additional information on effort relative to benefit

13. Hydromodification Recommendation
Mine PHAB/CRAM data to explore if those data can be used to support hydromodification assessment tools
Estimated cost = $75,000
Test existing hydromodification assessment tools at selected sites
Estimated cost = $15,000 for training + $2,000/site (in kind)
First recommendation is from workgroup, and second is from SCCWRP?

14. Options to Consider Options Criteria Reduce sampling effort
Assess non-perennial streams
Causal assessment training
Mine PHAB/CRAM data
Test hydromodification indicators
Support decisions for 2015
Ability to support through in-kind
Cash necessary/saved
Support among workgroup

15. Funded by in-kind services
Decision?
Support 2015 decision
Funded by in-kind services
Cash necessary
Workgroup Support
Reduce sampling effort No
$450,000 saved
High
Non-perennial streams
Yes
$300,000 - $450,000
Causal assessments
$20,000 - $30,000
Mixed
Mine PHAB/CRAM
$75,000
Hydromod Assessment
$2,000/site
$15,000 (training)

17. Trends and tradeoffs
Get guidance from Exec Committee: Confirm that regional trends are the main priority, and that watershed- or landuse-specific trends are not as high priority.