1. Agency Needs for Project Monitoring Brooke Budnick Senior Fish Technician, PSMFC DFG Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program

2. California Department of Fish and Game Coastal Restoration Monitoring & Evaluation Fisheries Restoration Grants Program Qualitative Monitoring of Fisheries Habitat Restoration

3.  Qualitative Monitoring bbudnick@dfg.ca.gov bbudnick@dfg.ca.gov bbudnick@dfg.ca.gov bcollins@dfg.ca.gov bcollins@dfg.ca.gov bcollins@dfg.ca.gov  Quantitative Monitoring Under review Under review  Validation Monitoring http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs.html http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs.html http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs.html

4. FRGP Project Types

5. Qualitative Monitoring Team

6. We are responsible for… Qualitative Effectiveness Monitoring  Data collection & management  Protocol review & field testing  Providing training

7. Purpose of qualitative monitoring

8. PERMITCOMPLIANCE  100% Implementation monitoring  10% Effectiveness monitoring

9. Permitting Agencies  Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit NOAA Biological Opinion NOAA Biological Opinion USFWS Biological Opinion USFWS Biological Opinion Relies on Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund performance measures Relies on Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund performance measures  State Water Resources Control Board Section 401 permit

10. Results of monitoring 2004-2006

11. 100% implementation monitoring is leading to… 1. Thorough documentation of project implementation 2. Greater accountability and involvement by DFG contract managers 3. Increased quality of contract language

12. >10% effectiveness monitoring is leading to… 1. Permit compliance 2. More detailed and specific project goals 3. Pre- and Post-treatment visits 4. Interest in the protocol by NOAA, CCC, and grantees

13. Our qualitative monitoring has useful but limited application  Can detect trends in restoration effectiveness within the FRGP program.  Those trends can inspire and direct quantitative monitoring studies.

14. 1. Project, site & feature location 2. Photo documentation 3. Qualitative evaluation checklists

15. Documenting Project Locations  Essential  Time consuming  Challenging

16. Location Documentation Challenges  How to define project, site and feature?  Who will document locations of sites and features?  When to document location of features?  If and when we can deviate from the protocol?  How will we provide training at the level required by the protocol?

18. Location Documentation Solutions  Moving toward… accepting the easiest and most cost effective methods accepting the easiest and most cost effective methods trying not to duplicate work trying not to duplicate work heavier reliance on GIS heavier reliance on GIS

19. Photographic Monitoring  Important  Time consuming  Challenging

20. Photographic Monitoring Challenges  Monumented photo points or opportunistic photos?  Where to store photos?  How to share photos?  Standardize protocol?

21. Solutions?  Simplify  Be flexible  But, what do with all those photos?

22. Qualitative Qualitative Monitoring Protocol based on design developed by UC Berkeley Center for Forestry (Harris, et. al) Revised by Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program

23. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Pre-treatment Effectiveness  What are current site conditions?  What are the goals of the feature?

24. Example of Pre-treatment Questions 2. Current level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 3. Maximum residual water depth in treatment area (ft): 4. Is change in habitat type a goal of the feature? a. Targeted level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH a. Targeted level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 5. Is increasing max. water depth in the treatment area a goal of the feature? a. Targeted maximum residual depth (ft): a. Targeted maximum residual depth (ft):

25. When to conduct pre-treatment monitoring?

26. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Implementation  Was the feature implemented as “approved”?  As-built condition?  Assign individual & overall ratings.  Summarize performance measures.

27. Example of implementation questions 5. Was the feature placed in the approved position? a. Placement: LBK, MDC, RBK, SPN, OTH a. Placement: LBK, MDC, RBK, SPN, OTH 6. Was the feature oriented as approved? a. Orientation: DNS, MUL, PRL, PRP, UPS, OTH a. Orientation: DNS, MUL, PRL, PRP, UPS, OTH 7. Were approved materials used for the feature? a. Materials: CON, LWD, MTL, NTR, OFR, RTW, VEG, WOO, OTH a. Materials: CON, LWD, MTL, NTR, OFR, RTW, VEG, WOO, OTH

28. How to get 100% implementation monitoring?

29. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Post-treatment Effectiveness  What are the current site conditions?  Did the feature achieve the defined goals?  Assign individual and overall ratings.

30. 6. Current level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 7. Maximum residual water depth in treatment area (ft): a. Maximum residual depth associated with the structure (ft): a. Maximum residual depth associated with the structure (ft): 8. If a goal, did the feature create the targeted instream habitat type? 9. Were there any unintended effects on the habitat type? 10. If a goal, did the feature increase max. water depth in the treatment area? a. Did the feature achieve the targeted maximum residual depth? a. Did the feature achieve the targeted maximum residual depth? 11. Were there any unintended effects on the water depth? Example of Post-treatment Questions

31.  When to conduct post- treatment monitoring?

32. Relating the phases of monitoring…

33. Instream Restoration Monitoring

34. “Fish Passage at Stream Crossings”

35. “Fish Passage Improvement at Barriers”

36. “Fish Screening of Diversions”

37. “Instream Habitat Restoration”

38. “Streambank Stabilization (non- bioengineered)”

39. “Bioengineered Streambank Stabilization”

40. “Streamflow Treatments”

41. Riparian Restoration Monitoring

42. “Revegetation Treatments”

43. “Vegetation Control”

44. “Land Use Treatments”

45. Upslope Restoration Monitoring

46. “Stream Crossing Decommission”

47. “Road Segment Decommission”

48. “Stream Crossing Upgrade”

49. “Road Segment Upgrade”

50. “Erosion Control/ Slope Stabilization”

51.  There is an unknown amount of variability between data collectors.  Protocol use requires training and QAQC by DFG personnel.  Retaining several training monitoring technicians is essential to quality data.

52.  Protocol must be used under DFG direction only.  Monitoring grants using qualitative protocol should be minimized.  The focus outside DFG should be quantitative.

53.  Cooperation  Communication  Retention of monitoring personnel  Data management

54. bbudnick@dfg.ca.gov

55. Project types listed in the NMFS, NOAA Fisheries RGP-12 Biological Opinion. Project Type Number Project Type Description 1 Instream Habitat Improvements 2 Instream Barrier Modification for Fish Passage Improvement 3 Stream Bank Stabilization 4 Fish Passage Improvement at Stream Crossings 5 Riparian Habitat Restoration 6 Upslope Watershed Restoration 7 Fish Screens